Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV00243, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00243    Hearing Date: January 26, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Defendant Ayme Alcaraz (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Rodolfo Cruz Garcia (Plaintiff) for deposition.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on December 8, after multiple attempts to reschedule, Defendant re-noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for January 26, 2022.  On January 20, 2022 Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that Plaintiff would attend his deposition on January 26, 2022 and indicated Plaintiff would need a Spanish interpreter.  Defendant arranged for an interpreter to be present.  Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on January 26, 2022. 

On October 4, 2022, Defendant served the fifth amended deposition notice on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition of Plaintiff for November 4, 2022.  On November 4, 2022, Plaintiff failed to appear for the deposition after Defendant arranged for a Spanish interpreter to be present.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion. The Court finds Plaintiff’s repeated failures to appear for deposition to be an abuse of the discovery process, warranting monetary sanctions. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subd. (d), 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Accordingly, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,065, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $165 per hour, the motion filing fee of $60, and the cost of the Spanish interpreter at $675.[1]  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition within 30 days of notice of the Court’s order, unless Defendant stipulates otherwise.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,065 to Defendant, by and through counsel for Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.