Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2022-01241907, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Motions to Compel

Plaintiff Martin Becerra Valdivia’s motions to compel the depositions of Defendants Ideal Property Management, Inc.’s and Anaheim East Group, LP’s employee and/or persons most qualified are GRANTED.

Defendants Ideal Property Management, Inc. and Anaheim East Group, LP are ORDERED to produce the person(s) most qualified for deposition no later than 30 days after this ruling (unless the parties agree in writing to another deadline).

Plaintiff Martin Becerra Valdivia’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Plaintiff Martin Becerra Valdivia moves to compel the depositions of Defendants Ideal Property Management, Inc.’s and Anaheim East Group, LP’s employee and/or persons most qualified.

If a party to an action has been properly served with a notice of deposition and the party fails to appear at the deposition without having served a valid objection, the noticing party may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (See Civil Proc. Code, § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendants were served with Notices of First Continuance of Taking Deposition. Defendants’ counsel indicated that she would not be available for the depositions until 06/22/2022, whereupon Plaintiff’s counsel reset the depositions for 06/22/2022 and served Notices of Second Continuance of Taking Depositions.

On 06/14/2022, in response to a request from Plaintiff’s counsel to confirm the deposition date, Defendants’ counsel indicated that she was leaving the law firm handling this matter and that the depositions would need to be reset. Defendants’ counsel purported to take the depositions off calendar, but did not provide alternative dates for the depositions nor did she state how the depositions could be rescheduled.

Here, there is no dispute that notices of deposition for 06/22/2022 were served on Defendants based upon the request of Defendants’ counsel and that Defendants agreed to the depositions (although not to the date on which they were set). While Defendants’ new counsel represents that proposed deposition dates have been provided to Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff nonetheless is entitled to an order compelling the depositions pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 2025.450, particularly so that further delay can be avoided.

Civil Procedure Code section 2025.450(g)(1) provides: “If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Here, Defendants’ prior counsel was not diligent in informing Plaintiff’s counsel that she would not be available (for the second time) for a scheduled deposition, and also failed to apprise Defendants’ current counsel of the existence of the depositions and the need to reschedule them. This lead to considerable delay in taking these depositions and the need to file these motions to compel. Plaintiff’s frustration is understandable.

At the same time, it would not be just to impose sanctions on the Defendants or Defendants’ current counsel as they were not directly involved in the delays and quickly moved to reschedule the depositions when informed of the need to do so. Therefore, the court will not order sanctions at this time but Defendant and Defendants’ counsel are informed that future lack of diligence in responding to discovery requests, without good cause, will lead to the imposition of sanctions.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling.