Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV24025, Date: 2024-09-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV24025    Hearing Date: September 3, 2024    Dept: 29

Tyler v. Short
21STCV24025
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Alexis Tyler to Appear for Deposition
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kyra Eleri to Appear for Deposition

Tentative

The motions are GRANTED.

Background

On June 29, 2021, Alexis Tyler and Kyra Eleri (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Stacia Short, Ramon Baguio, Bianca Baguio, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an accident occurring on September 19, 2019.

On September 21, 2022, Ramon Baguio and Bianca Baguio (collectively “Defendants”) filed an answer.

On July 31, 2024, Defendants filed the motions to compel each of the Plaintiffs to appear for deposition. 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).) 

In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”  Where a party or attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”  (Id., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

Defendants have been attempting to take Plaintiffs’ depositions since December 2022; Defendants served notices of deposition, but the depositions were postponed.  (Bekaryan Decls., ¶¶ 2-11.)  Most recently, on March 7, 2024, Defendants served Plaintiffs with notices setting their depositions for April 4, 2024. (Id., ¶ 23.) On April 3, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested the depositions be postponed; Defendants declined, and on April 4, 2024, affidavits of non-appearance were taken as Plaintiffs failed to appear for their depositions. (Id., ¶¶ 27, 28.) On July 30, 2024, Defense counsel again requested dates for depositions. (Id., ¶ 29.)

Defendants have shown that they properly noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions on multiple occasions, and Plaintiffs have failed to proceed with their depositions. (See Exhs. A, C, & P.) Further, Defense counsel has reached out regarding available depositions dates; Plaintiffs have yet to provide them.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to compel Plaintiffs to appear for their depositions.

As for sanctions, the Court is granting the motions the compel, Plaintiffs have not acted with substantial justification, and the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust under these circumstances.  The request for sanctions is granted in part.  Given the straightforward nature of these motions, and the economies of scale associated with preparing two parallel motions at the same time, the Court sets sanctions on each motion in the amount of $786.65, calculated based on 1.5 hours of attorney time on each motion at a reasonable hourly rate of $250, plus $61.65 in filing fees, plus the $350 non-appearance fee. (Bekaryan Decls., ¶ 31 & Exhs. X.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiffs to appear for depositions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Alexis Tyler to appear for deposition and give testimony under oath on a date to be noticed by Defendants on or before September 30, 2024.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Kyra Eleri to appear for deposition and give testimony under oath on a date to be noticed by Defendants on or before September 30, 2024.

Defendants’ request for sanctions on each motion is granted in part.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Alexis Tyler and her counsel of record, Karimian Law Group, jointly and severely, to pay $786.65 in sanctions to Defendants within 30 days of notice of this order.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Kyra Eleri and her counsel of record, Karimian Law Group, jointly and severely, to pay $786.65 in sanctions to Defendants within 30 days of notice of this order.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.