MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Robert Eubanks (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Lavida Marie Childs, et al. for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision.  

Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling defendant Lavida Marie Childs (“Defendant Childs”) to provide further responses to his special interrogatories, set one, as to Nos. 1 through 23, and request for production of documents (“RPDs”), set one, Nos. 1 through 63. 

Any opposition was due on or before May 23, 2024. The Court will not consider defense counsel’s untimely oppositions filed on June 4, 2024. 

II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A motion¿to compel further responses to requests for production “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.”¿(Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).)¿ The declaration must state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented in the motion.¿ (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)¿  

The Court finds that Plaintiff met the requirements of Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(b)(2).  

Per the Eight Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts effective October 10, 2022 (Filed September 20, 2022), ¶ 9E, “PI Hub Courts will not hear Motions to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Discovery until the parties have engaged in an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC). PI Hub Courts may deny or continue a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery if parties fail to schedule and complete an IDC before the scheduled hearing on a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery.” Additionally, “Reserving or scheduling an IDC does not extend the time to file a Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses.” (Ibid.) 

Here, the Court finds Plaintiff complied with the Standing Order in scheduling and attending an IDC on April 17, 2024. The issues were unresolved. (Min. Order, April 17, 2024.)  

A motion to compel further responses requires a separate statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).) Plaintiff properly filed separate statements for each motion to compel further. 

III. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Robert Eubanks (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel the deposition of defendant Lavida Marie Childs (“Childs”) and the deposition of defendant Wayfinder Family Services’ (“Wayfinder”) person most knowledgeable (“PMK”). Plaintiff further avers there is good cause to order production of the requested documents contained in the deposition subpoenas. 

Plaintiff served several notices of the taking of Childs’ and Wayfinder’s PMK’s depositions. Childs and Wayfinder did not serve any objections or response to the notices. Plaintiff’s counsel called and discussed the failure to appear, in which defense counsel indicated that they would produce a PMK in three weeks, but that Childs was unlikely to appear. To date, defense counsel has not produced the deponent’s availability.  

Any opposition was due on or before May 23, 2024; the Court will not consider the untimely opposition filed on June 4, 2024.  

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. 

There is no evidence that Childs or Wayfinder served any valid objections to the deposition notices, and they did not oppose the motion demonstrating otherwise. Further, there is no evidence that Childs and Wayfinder’s PMK’s depositions have proceeded since the filing of the instant motion.  

Therefore, the motions to compel and compel production of documents are GRANTED (CCP § 2025.450(a).): 

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. Plaintiff requests $2,180 in connection with the motion to compel Childs’ deposition, and $2,192.60 in connection with the motion to compel the deposition of Wayfinder’s PMK.  

A court has discretion to award sanctions that are “suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks” but they should not be punitive in nature or levied for the purposes of punishing an offending party. (Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1545.)  

Plaintiff is awarded four hours total for the motion at the requested rate of $300 per hour for a total of $1,200 in attorney’s fees. Additionally, Plaintiff is awarded two motion filing fees of $60, for a total of $120 as costs.  

Sanctions are and imposed against Childs and Wayfinder separately:  

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

Dated this 5th day of June 2024