Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV24695, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24695    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ONE JUN YU, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

JUN GYU CHOI, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 22STCV24695 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

March 8, 2024 

 

I. Background 

On January 16, 2024, plaintiff One Jun Yu (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to compel defendants Jun Gyu Choi and Allison H. Choi (“Defendants”) to appear for their depositions and to pay monetary sanctions. Trial is currently set for March 26, 2024.  

Any opposition was due on or before February 26, 2024; none was filed.  

 

II. Motion to Compel Deposition 

  1. Legal Standard 

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. 

Further, CCP § 2025.450(b)(2) provides that the motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. 

 

  1. Discussion 

Here, Plaintiff avers that Defendants and their counsel are absent from the case. After the Court granted Plaintiff’s motions to compel and to deem request for admissions admitted, Defendants have still not responded to discovery despite the imminent trial date. Plaintiff had noticed Defendants depositions to occur on November 14, 2023. Defendants did not object to the notices, and Plaintiff has not heard from Defendants after noticing the depositions. Defendants failed to appear for their noticed depositions, and Plaintiff took certificates of non-appearance. Thereafter, on November 30, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to defense counsel requesting an explanation as to why they failed to appear. However, Plaintiff avers that defense counsel did not respond.  

There is no evidence that Defendants served any valid objections to the deposition notices, nor did Defendants oppose this motion demonstrating otherwise. Further, there is no evidence that Defendants’ depositions have proceeded since the filing of the instant motion. The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration sufficiently complies with CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).  

Therefore, the unopposed motion to compel is GRANTED. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) Defendants Jun Gyu Choi and Allison H. Choi are ordered to appear for their depositions at a date, time, and location to be noticed by Plaintiff, but Plaintiff must give at least ten days’ notice of the deposition (notice extended per Code if by other than personal service). In consideration of the impending trial date, the depositions must be completed within the next fifteen (15) days; discovery shall remain open for the purposes of the completion of Defendants’ depositions only.  

 

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 $2,669.75 for preparing the motion, to appear at the hearing, filing costs, and for the certificate of-non-appearance fee. 

Plaintiff is awarded one hour for the motion and one hour to appear at the hearing at the requested rate of $350 per hour, for a total of $700 in attorney fees. Further, Plaintiff is awarded one motion/electronic filing fee of $66.75 and the stenographer costs for the non-appearances in the amount of $853, for a total of $919.75 as costs.  

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Defendants and Defendants’ attorney of record, jointly and severally. Defendants and/or defense counsel are ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiff, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1,619.75 within fifteen (15) days.   

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 7th day of March 2024 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court