SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Defendants Danny Rivera Esqueda and A&A Global Imports, LLC (“Defendants”) move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Rosa Diaz (“Plaintiff”). Defendants contend they noticed Plaintiff’s in-person deposition on nine different occasions, and that Plaintiff has refused to appear for her in-person deposition.  

On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition, which was due on or before September 28, 2023. (CCP §1005.) Nonetheless, the Court, in its discretion, will consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition.  

 

II. 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 served a seventh amended notice of deposition for an in-person deposition for May 3, 2023. The day before the deposition, at 4:00 p.m., Plaintiff’s counsel asked for a zoom link for the deposition. A certificate of non-appearance was issued on May 3, 2023. For the eighth amended deposition notice, Defendants served an in-person deposition notice to be held at Veritext Legal Solutions in Van Nuys. Plaintiff’s counsel objected on the grounds that the date was unilaterally noticed and that Plaintiff was feeling unwell. Defendants took the deposition off-calendar. Thereafter, the parties met and conferred, and defense counsel agreed to have a June 30, 2023 deposition take place at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office instead of at Veritext Legal Solutions.  Defendants served Plaintiff with a ninth amended deposition notice for June 30, 2023, to be conducted at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. Plaintiff’s counsel then informed defense counsel that the deposition would not move forward, and defense counsel proposed two alternative dates of July 5, 2023 and July 6, 2023. Plaintiff’s counsel stated they were unavailable those two proposed dates. Defendants bring this motion to compel, averring that from October 2021 to June 2023, and as of the date of the instant motion, Plaintiff had yet to be deposed.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues she appeared for her deposition on May 3, 2023 at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office for a remote deposition, and Plaintiff’s counsel requested defense counsel to appear at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office. The deposition did not move forward. After a telephonic conference, defense counsel agreed to conduct the deposition at Plaintiff’s counsel’s office on a different day. Plaintiff contends that the last communication between the parties was Plaintiff’s counsel requesting alternative dates from defense counsel, which remained unanswered. Instead, Defendants filed this instant motion to compel. 

Based on the supporting exhibits provided by both parties, it appears that the last meaningful communication between the parties occurred on June 29, 2023, wherein defense counsel requested July 5, 2023 for the deposition. On the same day, Plaintiff’s counsel responded that Plaintiff was not available, and requested defense counsel to provide alternative dates. (Opp. Decl Zeesman, ¶ 7; Exh. A.) On August 30, 2023, defense counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel the notice of motion and motion to compel, in which Plaintiff’s counsel responded that they already agreed to appear and again requested dates so that they could move forward with the deposition without delay. (Opp. Decl Zeesman, ¶ 9; Exh. B.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel avers that he offered dates of June 29, 2023, August 31, 2023, September 27, 2023 and October 4, 2023, but defense counsel did not respond. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Although it appears that Plaintiff’s counsel has been making efforts to schedule the deposition, it appears that this Court’s intervention is necessary, as Defense counsel has been making efforts to have Plaintiff deposed for two years, to no avail. 

Therefore, the motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). If the parties agree to a remote deposition, the deposition may be conducted remotely. 

 

 

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. Defendants request sanctions of $1,810. Because Plaintiff’s counsel offered recent deposition dates to which Defense counsel did not respond, the Court declines to award sanctions.