Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV31881, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31881    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 29

Schwartzman v. Mainro LLC
22STCV31881
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant RPZ LA, LLC dba Mainro’s

Tentative

The motion is granted.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.

Background

On September 29, 2022, Emmanuelle Schwartzman ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Mainro LLC, DWG International, Inc., Romain Zago, and Does 1 through 50, for general negligence and premises liability arising from a trip and fall occurring on September 17, 2022 at or near 6350 Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles. 

On June 12, 2023, RPZ LA, LLC dba Mainro (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently set for May 1, 2025.

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 … 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 2025.230 provides: “If the deponent named is not a natural person, the deposition notice shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested.  In that event, the deponent shall designate and produce at the deposition those of its officers, directors, managing agents, employees, or agents who are most qualified to testify on its behalf as to those matters to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent.” 

Section 2025.410 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).)

Section 2025.450 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.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040, “or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents … by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”  (Id., subd. (b)(2).)  The motion must also “set forth specific facts showing cause” for the production of documents.  (Id., subd. (b)(1).) 

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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the appearance of Defendant’s person most qualified to appear for deposition.

On January 15, 2025, Plaintiff served five notices of taking the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified for February 10, 2025. (Fradkin Decl. ¶ 5 & Exhs. 1-5.) The first notice was directed to Defendant’s person most qualified as to surveillance and preserving surveillance. (Exh 1.) The second notice was directed to Defendant’s person most qualified as to incident report policies and procedures. (Exh. 2.) The third notice was directed to Defendant’s person most qualified as to sweeps and inspections. (Exh. 3.) The fourth notice was directed to Defendant’s person most qualified as to Plaintiff’s incident. (Exh. 4.) The fifth notice was directed to Defendant’s person most qualified as to staff working on the date of Plaintiff’s incident. (Exh. 5.)

No objections were served. (Fradkin Decl. ¶ 6.) On February 5, Defendant’s counsel advised Plaintiff that counsel had “not been able to reach an appropriate representative” for the depositions.  (Exh. 6.)

The motion to compel is granted.  The depositions were duly noticed, and Defendant failed to produce its person most qualified to testify.

The request for sanctions is granted in part.  In light of the relatively straightforward nature of the motion, the Court sets sanctions in the amount of $875, calculated based on 2.5 hours of attorney time for the motion multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour.  (Fradkin Decl., ¶ 10.)

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

The Court ORDERS Defendant RPZ LA, LLC dba Mainro’s to produce the person most qualified to attend a deposition, answer questions under oath on each of the topics identified in the deposition notices, and produce documents on April __, 2025, at ___ a.m./p.m., by remote technology.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide a link for the deposition to counsel for all parties at least 48 hours in advance of the deposition.

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

The Court ORDERS Defendant RPZ LA, LLC dba Mainro’s to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $875 to Plaintiff (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.