Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV03876, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV03876    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: 29

Motion to Compel Plaintiff Devon Baylor’s deposition filed by Defendant ALTA Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc.

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

This cases arises out of a vehicle accident on September 19, 2021, on the I-10 Freeway near Alameda Street in Los Angeles.  On February 1, 2022, Plaintiff Devon Baylor (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Community Hospital, Alta Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc., John Doe 1, John Doe 2, and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On April 11, 2022, Defendant Alta Los Angeles Hospitals, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed its answer.

On April 13, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Marlon R. Mejia Paz as John Doe 1.

On October 12, 2022, the Court granted the motion of Plaintiff’s attorney to be relieved as counsel.

On March 20, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for an order to compel the deposition of Plaintiff, and for monetary and/or terminating sanctions. Defendant served pro per Plaintiff by mail. 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.

“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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  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

On January 12, 2024, Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of taking deposition of Plaintiff. (Bauerlein Decl., ¶ 12.) Plaintiff failed to appear at the January 31, 2024 deposition, and a certificate of non-appearance was taken. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff has an obligation under the Civil Discovery Act to appear for and testify at a properly noticed deposition.  Plaintiff has not done so.  Defendant need not show anything more.  The motion to compel is granted.

The request for monetary sanctions is also granted in part.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)  Given the relatively straightforward nature of this motion, sanctions are set in the amount of $615, calculated based on three hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s billing rate of $185 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee.  (Bauerlein Decl., ¶ 8.)

The request for terminating sanctions is denied.  Defendant has not made a showing sufficient to support this request.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to appear for and testify at deposition on May __, 2024, at 1:30 pm, by Zoom.

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

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $615, within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.