Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV10333, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV10333    Hearing Date: October 4, 2022    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 Elizabeth Delao (“Defendant”) moves to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs Rina Arevalo and Jesus Torres (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).  Plaintiffs have not filed oppositions to the motions. 

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, the parties conferred and mutually agreed to set Plaintiffs’ depositions in  September 2021.  (Declaration of Sara Young, ¶¶ 2-3, Exhibits A-B.)  Following Plaintiffs’ requests to take the depositions off-calendar in order to consider settlement offers, Defendant withdrew the deposition notices.  (Id. at ¶ 4.)  After a series of unsuccessful attempts to reschedule and proceed with Plaintiffs’ depositions, on November 17, 2021, Defendant re-noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for January 24, 2022. (Id. at ¶¶ 5- 9.)  However, Plaintiffs did not appear for their depositions on that date.  (Id. at  ¶ 10.)   And as of the date of filing of the motions, Plaintiffs have not appeared for their depositions. 

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motions. The Court finds each Plaintiff’s failure 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 each Plaintiff in the amount of $657.50, which represents 2 hours of attorney time to prepare each motion and attend the hearing at $125 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60 per motion and the costs incurred by Defendant in connection with each Plaintiff’s’ non-appearance at the January 24, 2022 depositions of $695.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

Further, the Court orders each Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $657.50 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.