Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV03573, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03573    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant filed by Plaintiff Olivia Navarro.

Tentative

The motion to compel is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff Olivia Navarro (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”), Miguel, and Does 1 through 25 for Negligence and Premises Liability causes of action arising from television falling on Plaintiff on February 15, 2019.

On February 21, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel Downtown L.A. Law Group was disqualified from representing Plaintiff in this matter. Joseph Farzam Law Firm was substituted in as attorney on December 6, 2023.

On May 5, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff and request for sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration in opposition on February 26, 2024. Defendant filed a reply on March 1, 2024.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(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.”

 The motion shall “(1) 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” and “(2) 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)(2).)

“Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(a).)

“A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040.)

A court shall impose monetary sanctions in favor of the moving party if the motion to compel is granted, unless “the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Discussion

On August 18, 2021, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for November 9, 2021; Plaintiff failed to appear. (Romersa Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5; Exh. A.) On January 18, 2023, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for February 28, 2023. (Id., ¶ 6; Exh. B.) Plaintiff served objection to the deposition. (Exh. C.) Defendant served an amended notice of deposition that included production of documents for February 28, 2023. (Id., ¶ 8; Exh. D.) Plaintiff did not appear for the deposition. (Exh. E.)

Defendant does not need to show anything more.  Defendant is entitled to take Plaintiff’s deposition, and so far Plaintiff has failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition, without valid objection.  The motion to compel the deposition is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.  Given the relatively straightforward nature of a motion to compel a deposition, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $615, calculated based on three hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $205 per hour.  (Romersa Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to appear for and testify at deposition at a date, time, and place to be arranged by counsel within 30 days of notice.

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act to Defendant in the amount of $615.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.