SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Amelia Linares (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Montemax Properties, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) person most qualified (“PMQ”), and seeks sanctions. Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.   

 

II. 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. 

Here, Plaintiff served her deposition notices on February 27, 2023 (setting deposition for April 12, 2023), May 4, 2023 (setting deposition for May 22, 2023), and June 30, 2023 (setting deposition for August 9, 2023). Plaintiff argues Defendant did not formally object to any of the deposition notices, and that the deposition has not moved forward. Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer with defense counsel telephonically and electronically, but avers Defendant provided no dates or any indication that Defendant’s PMQ would sit for deposition or produce documents. 

In opposition, defense counsel contends they advised Plaintiff’s counsel that they were unavailable for the deposition noticed for April 12, 2023, but that Defendant was available on April 20, April 21, April 24, and April 26. The deposition was then noticed for April 20, 2023, but Plaintiff cancelled the deposition. Per Plaintiff’s request, Defendant provided additional dates of May 15, May 16, or May 17. The parties agreed to May 22, 2023. However, Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled the deposition, stating she was starting trial on May 23, 2023, and that May 22, 2023 would not work. Defendant avers that it was always ready to appear for its deposition, and that Plaintiff was cancelling and rescheduling the depositions. Defendant objected to the June 30, 2023, because Defendant avers discovery was closed since it was one week after the initially scheduled June 23, 2023 trial date. 

In reply, Plaintiff argues the Court vacated the June 23, 2023 trial date on June 9, 2023, and therefore Defendant’s assertion that the last noticed deposition violated the timing provisions of CCP section 2024.020 is without merit.  

The evidence provided demonstrates Defendant participated in meet and confer efforts to move forward with the deposition, and but for Plaintiff’s counsel cancelling twice, the deposition would have already been completed. Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice at this time. The Court notes that a Trial Setting Conference is currently on calendar for January 29, 2024. In the meantime, the parties are ordered to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date to conduct Defendant’s PMQ’s deposition.  Absent a stipulation between the parties, fact discovery remains open only as to the PMQ deposition.   

 

III. 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. Because the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion, no sanctions are awarded. 

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.