Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV05449, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV05449 Hearing Date: November 13, 2024 Dept: 68
Dept. 68
Date: 11-13-24
Case # 24STCV05449
Trial Date: 6-2-25
DEPOSITION
MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Louis Franco
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Efren Mendez
RELIEF REQUESTED
Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Efren Mendez
SUMMARY OF ACTION
On March 8, 2022, plaintiff Efren Mendez was involved in
an automobile collision with a vehicle operated by Defendant Louis Franco. On March
4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint without any identified cause of action.
RULING: Granted.
Defendant Louis Franco moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff
Efren Mendez. Plaintiff in opposition contends the deposition was “unilaterally
set” in violation of Local Rule 3.26, and Defendant failed to engage in a good
faith meet and confer process. Defendant in reply reiterates the necessity of
the motion, due to an offer to withdraw the motion if Plaintiff agreed to a new
deposition date and paid compensation. The offer was not accepted, thereby
requiring the order. Defendant also denies any conflict of interest thereby
justifying a motion for disqualification.
A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a
non-appearance of the noticed party. “If, after service of a deposition notice,
a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to
appear for examination, or to proceed with it … the party giving the notice may
move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony…” (Code
Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) A party must object to a deposition no less
than three calendar days before deposition date. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.410,
subd. (b).)
On July 15, 2024, Defendant served a notice of deposition
and production of documents for July30, 2024. [Declaration of Burhan Cicek, Ex.
A.] Defendant represents no objections
or alternative dates were presented before the deposition date. Plaintiff
presents no proof of any objection or offer to coordinate and instead solely
relies on Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 3.26 and Appendix 3.A
Local Rule 3.26 states: “The guidelines adopted by the Los
Angeles County Bar Association are adopted as civility in litigation
recommendations to members of the bar, and are contained in Appendix 3.A.” The
Appendix section follows in relevant part: “(2) In scheduling depositions,
reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules or opposing
counsel and of the deponent, where it is possible to do so without prejudicing
the client’s rights. (3) When a deposition is noticed by another party in the
reasonably near future, counsel should ordinarily not notice another deposition
for an earlier date without the agreement of opposing counsel. (4) Counsel
should not attempt to delay a deposition for dilatory purposes but only if
necessary to meet real scheduling problems.”
The Local Rules are guidelines and not binding. Even if
binding, nothing in the Appendix in any way justifies a complete non-response
to the notice and offer to coordinate BEFORE the deposition date, instead of
forcing counsel to coordinate among all the defendants and incur court reporter
fees for the certificate of non-appearance.
Following the missed appearance, the court finds sufficient
efforts to meet and confer. [Cicek Decl., Ex. C-D.] Still, the subsequent meet
and confer effort and offers of new dates after the fact in no way justifies
the lack of any objections or failure to appear. [Declaration of Hess Panah.]
All defendants appeared for the deposition, and Plaintiff
failed to appear. Defendant took a certificate of non-appearance [Cicek Decl.,
Ex. B.] The court finds the motion sufficiently complies with procedural
requirements. The motion is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).)
The court finds the motion remains necessary in order to insure the deposition
is completed. When a plaintiff files a complaint in this court, the court
expects compliance with discovery obligations from the prosecuting party.
Plaintiff, Efren Mendez is ordered to appear for a
deposition within 30 days of this order. The court orders to meet and confer on
a new deposition within 10 days of this order. If the parties are unable to
agree, due to the lack of cooperation or communication by the deponent, and/or the
deponent fails to appear again after the setting of the date, Defendant(s) may
unilaterally pick a date. Defendant(s) may attempt to conduct the deposition, and
take a subsequent notice of non-appearance, if applicable. Any subsequent
non-appearance may constitute grounds for an evidentiary, issue or even
terminating sanction (dismissing the entire complaint) in favor of moving
defendant(s). (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (h).)
Sanctions entered against Plaintiff, Efren Mendez, for $1,350
($1,100 in court reporter costs and first time sanctions of $250), joint and
several against counsel as well, and payable within 30 days. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§2025.450, subd. (g).)
Any purported “personal vendetta” and alleged conflict of
interest by defendant counsel may be addressed in a separate motion to
disqualify. [Panah Decl., ¶ 11.] The court will NOT consider any collateral
challenge in ruling on the merits of the instant motion.
Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena and
Case Management Conference set for September 19, and December 6, 2023,
respectively.
Moving party to
give notice.