Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCV04177, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV04177 Hearing Date: May 27, 2025 Dept: G
Plaintiffs’ Yeon Joo Lee, Jaeho Lee, and Hyesook Jung
(“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Compel Defendants Ramon Hernandez and Quality 1st
Fleet Maintenance, Inc. (“Defendants”) to Appear and Testify at Deposition and for
Sanctions
Respondent: Defendants Ramon Hernandez and Quality 1st Fleet Maintenance, Inc.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to Appear and Testify at Deposition is MOOT.
Plaintiffs Requests for Sanctions against Defendants are DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred on January 13, 2023, when Plaintiffs YEON JOO LEE, JAEHO LEE and HYESOOK JUNG, (“Plaintiffs”) were injured as a result of Defendant RAMON HERNANDEZ driving a vehicle owned by Defendant QUALITY 1ST FLEET MAINTENANCE, INC.’s ("Defendants") negligence. On December 05, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint.
On April 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the present motion.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendants’ attendance at depositions they have previously noticed and also request sanctions Defendants and their counsel.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (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 to compel must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of the requested documents in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Good cause is construed liberally and has been found where documents are necessary for trial preparation. (See Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Superior Court (1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.) The motion must also “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce document . . . by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)
If the motion to compel 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) However, “absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (i)(1).)
Discussion
Motion to Compel
The court finds the motion to compel is MOOT.
On December 30, 2024, Plaintiffs served their first Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendants, unilaterally setting the deposition for January 24, 2025. (Spencer Decl. ¶ 4.) On January 27, 2025, Plaintiffs served their second Notice of Taking Deposition of Mr. Hernandez, again unilaterally setting the deposition for February 21, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 6.) On February 13, 2025, Defendants’ counsel, Nicholas Brauns, informed Plaintiff’s counsel of his unavailability on the noticed date. (Id. at ¶ 7.) On March 6, 2025, defense counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that they had lost contact with Defendant Hernandez and requested an extension to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. (Id. at ¶ 9.) On March 6, 2025, Defendants requested an extension to April 10, 2025 to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests propounded to Defendant Hernandez. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
During the period defense counsel was unable to locate Defendant Hernandez, defense counsel kept Plaintiffs’ counsel informed of the efforts to locate Defendant. (Id. at ¶¶ 12-15.) Once defense counsel located Defendant Hernandez, the deposition of Defendant Ramon Hernandez proceeded on May 13, 2025. (Reply at p.3.)
Since the requested deposition was taken on May 13, 2025, the court deems the motion MOOT.
Sanctions
Plaintiffs also request $2,560.00 in sanctions for ten (10) hours preparing and drafting the motion. The court finds sanctions are not warranted against Defendants and Defendants’ counsel because Plaintiff failed to first seek an Informal Discovery Conference as required by this court. Moreover, Defense counsel was diligent in keeping Plaintiff’s counsel informed of their loss of contact with Defendant Hernandez and their efforts to relocate him. (Spencer Decl. ¶¶ 9-15.) Once located, the deposition of Hernandez proceeded promptly.
Based on these circumstances, Plaintiffs request for sanctions is DENIED.