SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Kristen Osegueda (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Felix Ortega Dominguez (“Dominguez”). Dominguez is currently in pro per, after the withdrawal of defense counsel due to a mistake and lack of authority to file an Answer on behalf of Dominguez. (Min. Order, Feb. 16, 2023.) Plaintiff then hired an investigator, who personally served Dominguez on May 11, 2023 with the initial summons, complaint, discovery and deposition subpoena for May 25, 2023. On May 25, 2023, Dominguez failed to appear for his deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to telephonically communicate with Dominguez on multiple occasions, wherein Dominguez would hang up upon being informed of the nature of the call.  

The motion is unopposed.  

 

II. Motion to Compel Deposition 

CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “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.”  CCP § 2025.450 requires the Court to compel the deposition unless it finds a valid objection was served under §2025.410. 

There is no evidence that Dominguez served valid objections to the deposition notice, nor does Dominguez oppose the motion.  

Therefore, the motion to compel is GRANTED.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).) Defendant Dominguez is ordered to appear for her deposition at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). 

 

III. Contempt 

Aside from compelling Dominguez’s deposition, Plaintiff also seeks the Court to set an Order To Show Cause Re: why Dominguez should not be held in contempt, and an order that a failure to appear may result in the issuance of an arrest warrant.  

The procedures for contempt are quasi-criminal, and the burden of proof is significant.  The contempt proceeding is typically initiated by a charging affidavit, which frames issues that will be tried and seeks an Order to Show Cause re: Contempt from the court.  (CCP  § 1211 [“an affidavit shall be presented to the court or judge of the facts constituting the contempt”]; Cedars-Sinai Imaging Medical Group v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1283).  If the OSC re: Contempt is issued, it is normally served as a summons would be, and then the citee is arraigned.  [Cedars-Sinai at 1286.]  In some cases, a public defender is assigned to represent the citee at the contempt trial.  (County of Santa Clara v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Rodriguez), (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1686, 1697.]  “Although a contempt may arise, as here, in the context of a civil action, a contempt proceeding is punitive and separate from the cause out of which it arises (Kroneberger v. Superior Court, supra, "196 Cal.App.2d at p. 210), and it is for this reason that every "i" must be dotted and every "t" crossed.”  [Cedars-Sinai at 1286.]   

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for a preemptive order for an order to show cause re: contempt and an order that failure to appear may result in the issuance of an arrest warrant is DENIED.  

 

IV. Monetary Sanctions 

CCP § 2025.450(g)(1) requires the court to impose sanctions unless it finds the deponent acted with substantial justification or there are circumstances that render imposition of sanctions unjust. A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.) Plaintiff requests $2,425 in connection with the instant motion. 

The Court awards Plaintiff $485 for the motion, and one filing fee of $60 as costs. 

Defendant Dominguez is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $545, within twenty (20) days.