Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV44208 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV44208, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44208 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff Walter Crowder’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendants is GRANTED. Defendants Karen Taggart Intissar Awad are ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days of this order. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants Karen Taggart and Intissar Awad and counsel of record Lisa D. Collinson are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $623.30, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Legal Standard

Any party may obtain discovery … by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)

Where a party objects to the deposition, the proper remedy is an objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410. If such an objection is made within three calendar days before the deposition date, the objecting party must make personal service of that objection. (Code Civ. Proc. 2025.410, subd. (b).)

CCP 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).)

CCP section¿2025.450(b) provides:¿“A motion under subdivision (a)… 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.”¿ (Id., § 2025.450(b).)

Discussion

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff served both Defendant Awad with a Notice of Taking Deposition, setting the deposition for March 1, 2022. (Shirazi Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) On January 21, 2022, Plaintiff served Defendant Taggart with a notice of taking deposition set for February 18, 2022. (Id., Exh. 1.) Because Plaintiff had not heard back from Defendants, Plaintiff took the depositions off calendar. On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff served his First Continuance Notice of Taking Deposition of Defendants, scheduled to take place on April 7, 2022. (Id., Exh. 3.) On March 31, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel served her Objection to Plaintiff’s deposition notice, citing unilateral date selection and unavailability of Defendant and Defense Counsel. (Id., Exh. 5.) Plaintiff requested alternative dates. On April 19, 2022, after not receiving available dates for Defendants’ deposition, Plaintiff served his Second Continuance Notice of Taking Deposition, scheduled on May 10, 2022. (Id., Exh. 6.) On May 5, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel served its Objection to Plaintiff’s deposition notice, citing again to unilateral date selection and unavailability of Defendant and Defense Counsel. (Id., Exh. 7.) To date, Defendant’s deposition has not taken place despite Plaintiff’s three deposition notices and Plaintiff’s Counsel’s requests for Defense Counsel to provide available dates for Defendant’s deposition since February 2022. To date, Defense Counsel has not provided Plaintiff’s Counsel any dates for Defendant’s deposition.

The Court finds Defendants’ objections, on the basis that they were unavailable and that the deposition was unilaterally set, are not valid under CCP section 2025.410, as Plaintiff attempted to depose Defendants on three different occasions over the course of ten months and no dates have been provided for their depositions. Thus, as Defendants were properly served with the deposition notice, did validly object, and failed to file an opposition to this motion, the motion to compel Defendants to appear for deposition is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days of this order.

Sanctions

If a motion under CCP section¿2025.450(a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction 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. (CCP section¿2025.450(g)(1).)

As the motion to compel Defendants’ deposition is granted, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also granted, but in a reduced amount due to the simplicity of the motion. Thus, the Court imposes sanctions against Defendants and counsel of record Lisa D. Collinson, in the amount of $623.30 ($250 per hour, for 2 hours, plus $123.30 in filing fees) to be paid within 30 days of this order.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendants is GRANTED. Defendants Karen Taggart Intissar Awad are ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days of this order. The request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants Karen Taggart and Intissar Awad and counsel of record Lisa D. Collinson are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $623.30, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.