Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV05696, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV05696    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 29

 

Motions to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiffs filed by Defendant Frank Rodriguez Garcia.

 

Tentative

The motions are denied without prejudice.

Background

On February 16, 2021, Davis Tivas and Santos Tivas (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Frank Rodriguez Garcia (“Defendant”) for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on February 15, 2019.

 

On March 29, 2023, Defendant filed his answer.

 

On June 26, 2024, Defendant filed these motions to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs. Defendant also seeks sanctions.

 

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“Any party may obtain discovery … by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.280 provide the requirements for (among other things) what must be included in a deposition notice, when and where depositions may be taken, and how and when the notice must be served. 

“The service of a deposition notice … is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.”  (Id., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.410, subdivision (a), requires any party to serve a written objection at least three days before the deposition if the party contends that a deposition notice does not comply with the provisions of sections 2025.210 through 2025.280.

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.” 

Any such motion to compel must show good cause for the production of documents and, when a deponent has failed to appear, the motion must be accompanied “by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (Id., subd. (b).) 

When a 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.”  (Id., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) 

Discussion

Defendant served Plaintiffs with notices of their depositions, with both scheduled for June 18, 2024. (Holly Decls., ¶ 3 & Exhs. A.)  Defendant reached out prior to the deposition to confirm, but Plaintiff did not serve any objection and did not appear.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-6.) 

Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs to attend their depositions.  Defendant is certainly entitled to take Plaintiffs ‘deposition under the Civil Discovery act, but to obtain a court order compelling the depositions, Defendant must comply with all statutory requirements.  Here, Defendant has not done so.  Specifically, Defendant presents no evidence that, following the nonappearances, he reached out to Plaintiff “to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b).) 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiffs without prejudice.

 Moving party to give notice.