SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Defendant, County of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) moves to compel the in-person deposition of Plaintiff Maria Morales Garcia (“Plaintiff”) at the office of defense counsel located at 5001 Airport Plaza Drive, Suite 240, Long Beach, CA 90815, and requests monetary sanctions.   

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply.  

 

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.  

Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion is untimely by two court days; the Court, in its discretion, will consider the untimely opposition. Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to meet and confer. Defense counsel’s declaration provides that he personally spoke to Plaintiff’s counsel about the desire to take Plaintiff’s deposition in-person, and that the parties were unable to get over the impasse. (Mot. Thomas Decl.) Considering the facts of the issue provided by both parties, the Court will consider defense counsel’s separate meet and confer declaration sufficient. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is not signed; the Court will not consider an unsigned declaration.  

Defendant has the right to depose parties in-person. Defense counsel provides the in-person deposition is necessary to show Plaintiff photographs of the room where she fell and require her to mark on the photographs the area where she claims the fall occurred. Further, defense counsel argues the in-person deposition is the most effective way to effectively examine Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that she cannot leave her husband for an in-person deposition because she is his primary caregiver, and fears risk of exposure to Covid-19 due to her husband’s immunocompromised status. However, Plaintiff’s citation to non-binding cases is not persuasive. Although the Court understands Plaintiff is concerned about secondary exposure to Covid-19, the Court is unable to discern how Plaintiff requesting defense counsel to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition directly in her home would mitigate any potential for exposure. Further, in terms of being the primary caretaker, Plaintiff has not provided any information as to whether there is an alternate caregiver to watch her husband, nor does Plaintiff illustrate what efforts Plaintiff has taken, if any, to find a suitable arrangement. The evidence shows that Defendant properly served a deposition notice on Plaintiff.  The objecting party has the burden to justify objections asserted, (See Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1494-95), and Plaintiff did not object to Defendant’s deposition notices. Plaintiff does not cite to any binding authority holding that a party may refuse to appear for a properly noticed deposition based on the refusal to appear in-person.   

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Defendant requests Plaintiff to appear on February 8, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. at defense counsel’s office. However, considering Plaintiff may need time to make caretaking arrangements, the Court declines to order a specific date at this time. Rather, the parties are ordered to meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date in order for Plaintiff’s deposition to proceed within 30 days. If Plaintiff does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer discussions, Defendant may unilaterally notice Plaintiff’s deposition, and Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition at a date, time, and location at Defendant’s election. However, Defendant must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). If Defendant proceeds with an in-person deposition, it must comply with the Code and all Rules of Court.  (See e.g., CCP § 2025.310(b), Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1010.)    

 

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.  Here, Defendant requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff only. However, Defendant does not describe any specific conduct by Plaintiff to render the imposition of sanctions just. Although the opposition was not successful, there appears to have been a good faith attempt by Plaintiff and her counsel to meet and confer on the issue by requesting an alternative location for the in-person deposition. Thus, the circumstances here do not merit the imposition of monetary sanctions, and the request is denied. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.