Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: BC713113, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC713113    Hearing Date: August 1, 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

            Plaintiff Jenifer Galvez sued defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation based on injuries Plaintiff alleges she sustained in a slip and fall on a sidewalk near the entrance of a retail warehouse owned and controlled by Defendant. Plaintiff moves to compel the appearance of the person(s) most knowledgeable for Defendant (“Deponent”) for deposition.  Defendant 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 February 4, 2022, Plaintiff served the subject fourth amended deposition notice on Defendant.  Plaintiff noticed Deponent’s deposition for February 17, 2022.  Defendant served its objection to the notice on February 14, 2022, citing the unavailability of Defendant and its counsel.  Defendant did not produce Deponent for deposition on that date.  As of the date of filing of this motion, Defendant has neither produced Deponent for deposition nor provided alternative dates for Deponent’s deposition.  

Plaintiff seeks monetary, evidentiary, and issue sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court finds Plaintiff’s requests for sanction to be procedurally defective, however, because Plaintiff failed to include any such request for sanctions in her notice of motion, as required.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subd. (a).]  The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s requests for monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

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

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