Judge: Sarah J. Heidel, Case: 23BBCV01974, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV01974    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: V

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT V

MARINE AMIRKHANYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDEN MALUL, an individual, TRIG BUILDERS, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants.

Case No.: 23BBCV01974

Hearing Date: May 1, 2025

Time: 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT EDEN MALUL

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff MARINE AMIRKHANYAN
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant EDEN MALUL

The court considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Marine Amirkhanyan filed the complaint against defendants Eden Malul (Malul) and Trig Builder, Inc. on August 28, 2023, alleging negligence. Plaintiff alleges the following: On March 2, 2023, plaintiff was the driver of a 2015 BMW 328i traveling eastbound on Erwin Street approaching the intersection of Whitsett Avenue in the City of Los Angeles. Defendant Malul was driving southbound on Whitsett Avenue approaching Ewin Street, at the same time. Plaintiff accelerated from a full stop at the flashing red traffic lights at the intersection, the vehicle driven by defendant Malul failed to stop for the traffic signals, entered the intersection at a high speed, and caused a collision with the front driver’s side of plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of defendant Malul’s failure to obey a traffic control device, his failure to yield the right of way, his high speed, and his failure to pay attention to the roadway, plaintiff suffered injuries and damages.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on January 7, 2025. Defendant Malul filed his opposition on April 18, 2025. Plaintiff filed the reply on April 24, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450(a) provides:¿“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, or to proceed with it, or to produce for¿inspection any document . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.450(b) provides:¿“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:¿

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.¿

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).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)

DISCUSSION

Defendant Malul was deposed on March 25, 2025. (Carter Decl., 8; Exh. E.) Plaintiff requests that the court grant sanctions against defendant Malul and counsel of record, Robert L. Reisinger, because the deposition of defendant Malul only took place after plaintiff filed the instant motion.

On February 15, 2024, plaintiff requested dates of availability for defendant Malul’s deposition, which defense counsel provided on March 4, 2024. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. A.) Defendant Malul’s deposition was noticed for April 19, 2024, per mutual agreement, however on March 20, 2024, the parties agreed to take it off calendar while the parties focused on mediation efforts with an agreement to reschedule if mediation failed. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. C.) Mediation was not successful and plaintiff’s counsel re-noticed defendant Malul’s deposition for November 26, 2024. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. D.) On November 21, 2024, defense counsel objected to the deposition notice without providing alterative dates. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. D.)

Plaintiff’s counsel emailed defense counsel on November 27, 2024, and December 5, 2024, requesting defendant’s availability, but defense counsel did not provide it. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. E.) However, on November 27, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel was informed of a change in defense counsel. (Vardanyan Decl., E.) Plaintiff’s counsel noticed defendant’s deposition for January 7, 2025, based on plaintiff’s own availability, since defense counsel didn’t provide defendant Malul’s availability. On January 3, 2025, plaintiff’s counsel sent a follow up email to confirm the deposition, and defense counsel served its opposition but did not propose an alternative date. (Carter Decl., 6; Exh. C.) Plaintiff’s counsel replied that the deposition would remain on calendar unless availability was provided. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. F.)

Neither defendant nor defense counsel made an appearance at the deposition on January 7, 2025, and plaintiff took a notice of non-appearance. (Vardanyan Exhs. G, H.)

Defense counsel states that plaintiff served their amended notice of deposition of defendant Eden Malul on prior defense counsel and that current defense counsel, Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, were never properly served with the amended notice. (Carter Decl., 4; Exh. 4 1 A.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided documentation that the amended notice of deposition was served via email on December 10, 2024. (Vardanyan Decl., Exh. F.)

The court finds that as defense counsel served a valid opposition to the amended notice of deposition the day after the substitution of attorney was filed, and before the January 7, 2025 deposition date, sanctions are not warranted.

Based on the foregoing, the court DENIES the motion for monetary sanctions against defendant Eden Malul and attorney of record, Robert L. Reisinger

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling