Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00193, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 23CMCV00193 Hearing Date: March 28, 2024 Dept: A
23CMCV00193 Luis Nuno, Jr., et al. v.
Adan Anguiano, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This action
arises from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant, Bennett’s Plumbing, Inc. (“Defendant”)
moves to compel both Plaintiffs to appear for deposition. Defendant has been
attempting to schedule the depositions, but Plaintiffs’ counsel refuses to
provide available dates. Defendant sent notice of deposition on December 11,
2023, but Plaintiffs have objected. Defendant has attempted to meet and confer
without success. The Court should impose sanctions against Plaintiffs and their
counsel.
In opposition,
Plaintiffs contend that Defendant did not request dates for the depositions
either before or after sending a notice. Defendant set the depositions
unilaterally to which Plaintiffs objected. Defendant failed to meet and confer
in good faith.
In reply,
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ opposition is replete with
misrepresentations.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
If a party fails to appear for a
deposition after service of a deposition notice, without having served a valid
objection, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the
deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any
document or tangible thing described in the notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) The moving party must show good cause
for the deposition and attempt to meet and confer. (Id.)
The
scope of discovery is liberally construed to permit “disclosure as a matter of
right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit
it.” (Greyhound
Corp. v. Superior Court In and For Merced County
(1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378.) Admissibility is not the test; the
issue is discoverable if it is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Discovery of an issue is relevant
if the issue relates to a party’s claims or defenses. (Id.)
III.
DISCUSSION
Defendant
served notice of deposition on December 11, 2023, in response to Plaintiff’s
counsel’s representation that available dates would be forthcoming. (Pacetti
Decl. Exh. D, E.)
Defendant’s counsel requested confirmation of the
depositions two days later, to which Plaintiffs advised that counsel would “get
back shortly” with Defendant. (Id., Ex. H, I.)
Defendant explained that the dates were not unilaterally set by Defendant. (Id.
¶ 7, Ex. J.) Plaintiffs objected to the deposition notice. (Id., Ex. K.)
On
Monday, January 8, Plaintiffs’ counsel continued to maintain they were “working
on dates that [were] acceptable … .” (Opp. Ex. A, .pdf p.12.) Defendant filed
this motion on February 27, 2024. It was not until March 5, 2024, that
Plaintiffs offered available dates.
Plaintiffs
have not shown substantial justification for requiring a three-month delay in providing
Defendant with available dates for their depositions, notice of which was
initially served in December of 2023 for which sanctions are warranted. (Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 subd. (g)(1).)
The
evidence does not support Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendant did not meet
and confer either before or after Defendant filed this motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion
to compel the depositions of both Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are ordered
to appear for deposition on a date that is mutually convenient for the parties
within 30 days.
The court finds that $275 per hour to
prepare this discovery motion, the reply, and to appear is reasonable. The
total time purportedly spent on preparing the motion (17.6 hours) is excessive for
a non-complicated discovery motion which the parties should have resolved
without court intervention. The Court imposes sanctions of $825.00 ($275 x 3
hours) against Plaintiffs, Luis Nuno, Jr. and Reina Medina, and their counsel,
Alex and Diana Zeesman, jointly and severally, payable to Defendant’s counsel
within 10 days.