SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

1. Background  

On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff Kurios Lambert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant James Martin Jr. (“Martin”), Gaio Trucking, Inc., (“Gaio”) and Lexmar Distribution, Inc. (“Lexmar”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  

At this time, Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Martin’s deposition.  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.   

 

2. 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. 

 

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he noticed Defendant Martin’s deposition multiple times, and has attempted to meet and confer on dates. Defense counsel indicated to Plaintiff’s counsel that they had lost contact with Martin, and that if they were unable to contact him, then a motion for intervention would be filed. The parties argue back and forth regarding the extent of attempt for good faith meet and confers, but the salient point is defense counsel’s representation that they had lost contact with Martin during this time. Plaintiff contends a court order compelling Martin to appear for his deposition is required.   

Defendants’ opposition argues they were preparing motion papers for Gaio/Lexmar to intervene on behalf of Martin, while continuing efforts were made to contact Martin. Furthermore, defense counsel now represents that defense counsel has re-established contact with Defendant Martin at this time, and that counsel believes Martin will appear at a rescheduled deposition. (Opp. Morris Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants contend that rather than bringing this motion, that Plaintiff should have met and conferred with defense counsel for additional dates. Therefore, Defendants contend that this motion is now moot.  

 Plaintiff’s evidence shows that Plaintiff properly served a deposition notice on multiple occasions, with Plaintiff most recently noticing Martin’s deposition for August 10, 2022, which did not move forward because of Martin’s absence.  Plaintiff does not dispute that defense counsel could not locate or contact Martin at the time, but requests an order compelling Martin to appear for deposition.  Because the evidence shows Martin was properly served with the deposition notice and Martin did not appear, this motion is not moot, and the court grants the motion to compel Martin’s deposition.  (CCP § 2025.450(a).)   

Martin 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).   

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,250. Given that Plaintiff was informed that defense counsel could not locate or contact Martin, Plaintiff is put on notice that the court will not impose any sanctions against defense counsel absent direct evidence defense counsel in fact had the ability to contact Martin.  Now that defense counsel has been re-established contact with Martin and represents that Martin will appear at the next scheduled deposition, the Court expects the deposition to move forward in compliance with the Court’s order. In light of the circumstances, no sanctions are awarded.   

 

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.