SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff David Williams (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edward Damas (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. Defendant, a licensed attorney, is in pro per.  

Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant to submit to an additional deposition. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before October 20, 2023; none was filed.   

 

 

Moreover, CCP § 2025.290(a) provides, “Except as provided in subdivision (b), or by any court order, including a case management order, a deposition examination of the witness by all counsel, other than the witness' counsel of record, shall be limited to seven hours of total testimony. The court shall allow additional time, beyond any limits imposed by this section, if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination.”   

In this case, Defendant appeared for his deposition per the order of the Court on July 7, 2023. Plaintiff avers that, at the deposition, Defendant refused to identify himself on record, and refused to respond to any questions. Defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment to each and every question attempted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends the present issue, involving a motor vehicle incident, does not involve or elicit any facts that would be criminal in nature, and that Plaintiff was unable to depose Defendant because of the blanket objections. Therefore, Plaintiff suspended the deposition because Defendant was not complying with having his deposition taken.  

The Court reviewed the transcript of Defendant’s deposition. Based on the Court’s review, the Court finds unnecessary obstructive conduct by Defendant, which prevented the deposition from proceeding as it should.  For example, the transcript shows the following exchange took place: 

Q. Can you state and spell your full name, please. 

A. Fifth Amendment. 

Q. I'm sorry? 

A. Asserting the Fifth. 

Q. To your name? I'm just asking your name, sir, like, who is asserting the Fifth? 

A. Did you hear what I said? 

Q. Yeah. Can you hear me? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Who is asserting the Fifth Amendment, sir? 

A. I raised my hand, I swore in, I'm asserting the Fifth. 

Q. Who is "I," who are, like, what is your name? 

A. Fifth Amendment. 

Q. Well on the screen it says Edward Damas. Is that you? 

A. Fifth Amendment. 

Q. Are you represented by other counsel? I don't get it. 

A. Fifth Amendment. 

(Mot. Exh. C.) 

The deposition commenced at 10:06 a.m. and ended at 10:10 a.m. after Defendant continually invoked the Fifth Amendment as to each and every question. Here, the Court finds Defendant’s repetitious privilege invocation to basic questions to be unfounded, insufficient on its face for a claim of self-incrimination, and equivalent to an outright refusal to participate in his deposition. A party may not invoke blanket privilege with respect to discovery requests. (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308.) Furthermore, based on the history of this matter involving multiple discovery motions to compel Defendant’s compliance to even attend his own deposition, it is clear by Defendant’s conduct that he is frustrating Plaintiff’s attempt to obtain discovery. The Court reminds Defendant that “all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition.” (CCP §583.130) (emphasis added). 

The evidence shows that Defendant’s deposition was not completed, and that Defendant’s second deposition is required for Plaintiff to obtain information regarding the matter. Therefore, Plaintiff establishes good cause to compel Defendant’s second deposition.    

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to compel the second deposition of Defendant is GRANTED.  

The parties must meet and confer to schedule the deposition to be taken within 30 days. If Defendant does not meaningfully participate in the meet and confer process, Plaintiff may unilaterally set the date and time for the deposition with at least ten days’ notice to Defendant (extended per Code if by other than personal service).   

 

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 $2,185 in monetary sanctions. 

Here, Defendant’s conduct prevented the deposition from being completed, and his actions were not reasonable.  The Court awards Plaintiff 1 ½ hours to prepare the motion, one hour to appear at the hearing, and one hour of time wasted in preparing for Defendant’s deposition and the taking of said deposition, all at the requested rate of $250 per hour for a total of $875 in attorney’s fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded the cost of the court reporter’s fee for the July 7, 2023 deposition in the amount of $625, and an additional $60 for the motion filing fee, as costs.  

Defendant is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through his attorney of record, in the total amount of $1,560, within twenty days.