Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV21521, Date: 2025-02-11 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 22STCV21521    Hearing Date: February 11, 2025    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Plaintiffs Nicholas Ortiz, Elizabeth Ortiz, Patricia Salazar, Benjamin Salazar, Jeanet Ortiz, and Jorge Ortiz           

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Tanzina Nasreen, M.D.

Motion for Order Compelling Defendant to Pay Expert for Deposition Time and Request for Sanctions

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Nicholas Ortiz, Elizabeth Ortiz, Patricia Salazar, Benjamin Salazar, Jeanet Ortiz, and Jorge Ortiz (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order (1) compelling defendant Tanzina Nasreen, M.D. (“Defendant”) to pay expert witness Mark Williams, M.D. (“Dr. Williams”) for the time that he spent in deposition at Defendant’s request, and (2) awarding monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $2,600.

“A party desiring to depose an expert witness described in subdivision (a) shall pay the expert’s reasonable and customary hourly or daily fee for any time spent at the deposition from the time noticed in the deposition subpoena, or from the time of the arrival of the expert witness should that time be later than the time noticed in the deposition subpoena, until the time the expert witness is dismissed from the deposition, regardless of whether the expert is actually deposed by any party attending the deposition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subd. (b).)  However, “[a] daily fee shall only be charged for a full day of attendance at a deposition or where the expert was required by the deposing party to be available for a full day and the expert necessarily had to forgo all business that the expert would otherwise have conducted that day but for the request that the expert be available all day for the scheduled deposition.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subd. (e).)

The court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that (1) the deposition of Dr. Williams lasted a full day, or (2) Defendant required Dr. Williams to be available for a full day. 

First, Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that Dr. Williams’ deposition lasted for a little over three hours (from 10:02 a.m. to 1:10 p.m.), such that Plaintiffs have not shown that Dr. Williams attended a full day of deposition.  (Sagheb Decl., ¶ 7.)  Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant is required to pay Dr. Williams’ daily rate of $5,000 on the ground that Dr. Williams attended a full day of deposition.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subd. (e.)

Second, Plaintiffs have not presented evidence showing that Defendant required Dr. Williams to be available for a full day of deposition.  Plaintiffs did not show that counsel for the parties spoke about the anticipated length of the deposition or that counsel for Defendant otherwise represented to Plaintiffs’ counsel or Dr. Williams that Dr. Williams would be expected to attend a full day of deposition.  The court finds that the standard language in the Notice of Deposition that the deposition would “continue day to day, except Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, until completed” does not establish that Defendant required Dr. Williams to be available for an entire day.  (Sagheb Decl., Ex. C, Notice of Taking Dep., p. 2:19-23.)

Thus, because Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant required Dr. Williams to be available for a full day of deposition, the court finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendant is required to pay Dr. Williams’ daily rate of $5,000.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subds. (b), (e).)

The court further notes that Plaintiffs did not present evidence establishing Dr. Williams’ reasonable and customary hourly rate.  The court finds, after considering the declaration of Dr. Williams and his curriculum vitae in determining a reasonable hourly rate for Dr. Williams in light of his education, qualifications, and experience, that Defendant should pay Dr. Williams the total amount of $4,000 in connection with the taking of his deposition for three hours and eight minutes.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2034.430, subd. (b).)

The court denies Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant because the court finds that Plaintiffs did not show that Defendant engaged in conduct that constitutes a misuse of the discovery process.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

ORDER

            The court grants in part plaintiffs Nicholas Ortiz, Elizabeth Ortiz, Patricia Salazar, Benjamin Salazar, Jeanet Ortiz, and Jorge Ortiz’s motion for order compelling defendant to pay expert for deposition time and for sanctions as follows.

            The court orders defendant Tanzina Nasreen, M.D. to pay to Mark Williams, M.D. expert witness fees in the amount of $4,000.

            The court denies all other relief requested.

            The court orders plaintiffs Nicholas Ortiz, Elizabeth Ortiz, Patricia Salazar, Benjamin Salazar, Jeanet Ortiz, and Jorge Ortiz to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  February 11, 2025

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court