Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV01976, Date: 2023-01-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01976    Hearing Date: January 20, 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

            Plaintiffs Abudl Nasser Daoud and Laila Farhat (collectively, Plaintiffs) move the Court to compel the appearance of Defendant Nina Edison Perret (Defendant) for deposition.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiffs reply.

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 November 30, 2022, Plaintiff served the fourth amended notice of deposition on Defendant.  Plaintiff noticed Defendant’s deposition for December 12, 2022.  Defendant failed to appear for deposition on that date.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Defendant has not appeared for deposition.   

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition should be denied for two reasons.  First, Defendant attests the instant motion raises issues directly correlated to the substance of Defendant’s reserved Motion for Protective Order to be heard on July 7, 2023, and thus cannot be decided until said motion is heard.  However, Defendant cites no authority in support of their proposition that the Court must delay its finding on the instant motion until the hearing of a future motion.  More important, Plaintiff has not filed and served such motion and thus it is not ripe for consideration. 

Second, Defendant argues Plaintiff’s motion must be denied because Plaintiff failed to meet and confer in good faith.  However, no such informal attempt at resolution is required where the deponent fails to attend the deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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