Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV16306, Date: 2023-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16306    Hearing Date: April 14, 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 Liesa Marie Whatley (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Suzanna Warmin (Plaintiff) for deposition and to produce documents requested in the deposition notices.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

ANALYSIS

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, on July 29, 2022, Defendant served a Notice of Continuance of Taking Remote Video Conference Deposition on Plaintiff, setting the deposition for October 13, 2022.  On October 10, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel requesting that the deposition time on October 13, 2022 be moved from 10:00 am to 1:30 pm, to which Plaintiff’s counsel agreed. 

On October 13, 2022, neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for the deposition and a certificate of nonappearance of Plaintiff was taken.  Defendant’s counsel was charged a $420 fee for certificate of nonappearance.  As of the date of the instant motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition or produced documents described in the subject deposition notice.

The Court finds Plaintiff ‘s failure to appear for the 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 and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vania Nemanpour and the Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, in the amount of $800.34, which represents two hours of attorney time to prepare the moving papers, and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour; the nonappearance fee totaling $420; and the motion filing fee of $60.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and production of documents as set forth in the subject deposition notice, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, and orders Plaintiff to appear for deposition and produce documents within 30 days of notice of the Court’s ruling and service of a deposition notice on Plaintiff, unless Defendant stipulates otherwise.

Further, the Court orders Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Vania Nemanpour and the Law Offices of D. Hess Panah & Associates, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $800.34, 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.