Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV41439, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41439    Hearing Date: August 31, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

VANESSA DELGADO, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 20STCV41439 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

August 31, 2023  

 

1. Background 

Plaintiff Vanessa Delgado (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Luis Enriquez Cibrian Carrillo (“Defendant Carillo”).  Plaintiff initially noticed Defendant Carillo’s deposition for October 19, 2022, and after a discussion with counsel for Defendant Carillo on a mutually agreeable date, the deposition was rescheduled for December 6, 2022. However, Defendant Carillo failed to appear for his deposition, and Plaintiff obtained a certificate of non-appearance. Any opposition was due on or before August 18, 2023. No opposition has been filed.  

 

2. Motion to Compel 

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. 

Defendant Carillo did not oppose this motion and there is no evidence that Defendant Carillo served valid objections. There is no dispute that Defendant Carillo did not appear for his deposition, or that the deposition has proceeded since the filing of the instant motion.  

Therefore, the motion to compel is GRANTED.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)  Defendant Carillo is ordered to appear for 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).   

 

3. 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. Plaintiff requests $1,616.65 in sanctions. However, Plaintiff’s counsel does not provide a specific itemization of time spent preparing the motion, rate of billing, or any other information in support of the “8 hours” purportedly spent. Plaintiff’s counsel only provides a generalized summary of work performed outside of the motion, such as preparing and appearing for the deposition. The Court will not award unspecified and ambiguous requests. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanction is granted only in the amount of $61.65 for the filing fee, and $395 for the certificate of non-appearance, as costs.  

Defendant Carillo and/or his counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $456.65, within twenty (20) days. 

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 30th day of August 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court