Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00715 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00715, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00715 Hearing Date: January 10, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 10, 2023

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00715

¿¿

CASE NAME: Mauro Restrepo v. Sophie Adams, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Mauro Restrepo

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Sophie Adams, George R. Adams, Tiffany Winston, Christ Koutroumbus, Polly Koutroumbus

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Deposition

Tentative Rulings: (1) If the parties have not resolved the deposition scheduling, the Court will orchestrate a further meet-and-confer so the depositions can be scheduled, mooting the motion

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed an First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants, Sophie Adams aka Sophia Adams, Sofie Adams, Sophie Psychic Services dba Palos Verdes Estates Psychic Love Specialist by Sophia, dba Psychic Reading Meditation Center by Sophie, George R. Adams, Tiffany Johnson aka Tiffany Adams, Christ Koutroumbus, Polly Koutroumbus, and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”.) The FAC states causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (3) Unfair Competition.

Plaintiff claims that through his attorneys, Plaintiff has attempted to engage in good-faith negotiations to set deposition dates. However, Plaintiff claims that defendants have failed to appear and have refused to stipulate to agreed dates to conduct depositions. However, Defendants claim that Plaintiff has stated an intention to take five (5) depositions and has repeatedly noticed and failed to take those depositions. Defendants assert that they have been ready, willing, and able to be deposed on multiple occasions.

B. Procedural¿¿

On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel deposition. On December 21, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion to Compel Depositions. No Reply brief was received by the Court as of the day before the hearing.

¿ ¿¿

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

B. Discussion

As the Court reads the Opposition papers, Defendant is and has been willing to schedule the depositions on mutually agreeable dates. There have been past scheduling conflicts such as defense counsel being in trial or planning a vacation of requested deposition dates.

III. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

¿¿¿ If the parties have not already resolved the scheduling issues, the Court will facilitate a discussion and secure agreement between the parties on future dates. That will moot the motion.