Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 22GDCV00759, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Fira Zefa Akyan alleges that in October of 2020, defendant Jaojong Kim negligently owned, operated, used, drove, maintained, loaned or entrusted a motor vehicle so that the motor vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Plaintiff, thereby proximately causing Plaintiff injuries and damages.

“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)?

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, . . . the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony . . . .”? (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).? “. . . . (1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible?thing described in the deposition notice. [and] (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”? (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b).)

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.? (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)? On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent.? (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(2).)?

Defendant moves the Court to compel Plaintiff to appear for deposition. Defendant represents that Plaintiff failed to appear for Plaintiff’s noticed deposition on July 24, 2023. (Capra-Cunningham Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant further represents that Plaintiff’s deposition is necessary to prepare for trial.

The Court finds Defendant has set forth sufficient evidence to establish good cause to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, as Plaintiff failed to appear for deposition and comply with Plaintiff’s discovery obligation.

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record in the amount of $780.40 (representing six hours of work at a rate of $143.75/hour plus a $61.65 filing fee). (Capra-Cunningham Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court finds sanctions are appropriate in the reduced amount of $492.90 (representing 3 hours of work at a rate of $143.75/hour, plus a $661.65 filing fee), as the Motion is straightforward and unopposed.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of record, Hyka Heidi Karapetian, are ordered to pay $492.90, jointly and severally, in sanctions.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect/Microsoft Teams offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.