Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV12463, Date: 2025-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12463    Hearing Date: January 9, 2025    Dept: 29

Castillo v. Best
22STCV12463
Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff

Tentative

The motion is granted. The request for sanctions is granted.

Background

On April 13, 2022, Hector Castillo (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Kaifa Best (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for negligence, negligence per se (Vehicle Code section 22450), negligence per se (Vehicle Code section 22350), and statutory liability arising out of an accident on April 13, 2020.

On January 8, 2024, Defendant filed her answer.

On November 22, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.

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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Discussion

On January 5, 2024, Defendant served a deposition notice for Plaintiff, which was later taken off-calendar. (Michaelson Decl. ¶ 3, 4.) On June 21, 2024, Defendant served another notice of deposition, set for July 18, 2024. (Id. ¶ 7, Exh. C.) Plaintiff did not appear for the July 18, 2024 deposition. (Id., ¶ 8.) Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiff’s attorney about alternative dates but did not receive any. (Id., ¶ 10.)

The Court finds Defendant properly noticed Plaintiff’s deposition, that Plaintiff did not serve objections, and that Plaintiff failed to appear.

Accordingly, the motion to compel Plaintiff’s for deposition is GRANTED.

The request for sanctions is granted.  The Court sets sanctions in the requested amount of $610.70, calculated based on two hours of attorney time multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $200 per hour, plus a $150.70 non-appearance fee and a $60 filing fee. ( Michaelson Decl., ¶ 11.)

Conclusion

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

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Hector Castillo to appear for deposition, produce the requested documents, and give testimony under oath on January __, 2025 at 10 a.m. via remote video conference.

The Court ORDERS Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the link for the deposition at least 48 hours in advance of the deposition.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Hector Castillo to pay money sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $610.70 to Defendant (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

Moving parties to give notice.