Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV38549, Date: 2023-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38549    Hearing Date: January 19, 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 Joaquin Diaz (Defendant) moves the Court to compel the appearance of Plaintiff Hannah Chang (Plaintiff) for deposition.  Defendant requests monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  Plaintiff opposes the motion.  Defendant replies.

            Preliminarily the Court notes that Defendant fails to identify who he is requesting monetary  sanctions against.  (See Defendant’s Notice of Motion, p. 2.)  In the notice, Defendant states the following: “Defendant further seeks monetary sanctions for the cost of having to bring this motion and the expenses incurred as a result of Plaintiff’s failure to appear pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2025.450; 2025.480; 2023.030; 2023.020.”  The Court finds the language to be insufficient to give proper notice of Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or counsel for Plaintiff. 

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 September 13, 2022, Defendant served the subject, amended notice of taking deposition on Plaintiff.  Defendant noticed the deposition for September 30, 2022.  Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition on that date.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Plaintiff has not appeared for deposition.

            In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s motion should be denied on the ground that not all of the defendants in the action have appeared, and Plaintiff only wants to be deposed a single time by all defendants.  In reply, Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s opposition provides no legal authority for excusing Plaintiff’s failure to appear at her deposition on the basis of a concern about being deposed twice.  The Court agrees and finds that Plaintiff’s concern about being deposed twice is not a valid objection to the subject deposition.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants, in part, 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 denies, in part, Defendant’s motion to compel regarding Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions as procedurally defective. 

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