Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV04909, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV04909    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 29

Herrera v. 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC
23STCV04909
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On March 6, 2023, Rocio Honorato Herrera (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 50 for negligence and premises liability causes of action arising out of an accident on October 11, 2021, at or near 301 East 12th Street in Los Angeles.

On August 10, 2023, Defendant filed an answer.

On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Saul De Los Santos as Doe 1, Veronica Flores as Doe 2, and A&H Management as Doe 3.

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion to compel the deposition of Defendant.

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 2025.230 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 moves to compel the deposition of Defendant.

On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified (PMQ) for January 7, 2025. (Winter Decl. ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) No objections were served. (Id. ¶ 6.) The day before the deposition, defense counsel advised that no PMQ would be produced; Defendant did not produce a PMQ for the deposition, and a certificate of non-appearance was taken on January 7, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8 & Exhs. C-D.)

On January 13, 2025, Plaintiff served an amended notice of deposition of Defendant’s PMQ for February 18, 2025. (Id. ¶ 9 & Exh. E.) No objections were served. (Id. ¶ 11.) The day before the deposition, defense counsel advised that no PMQ would be produced; Defendant did not produce a PMQ for the deposition, and a certificate of non-appearance was taken on February 18, 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13 & Exhs. G-H.)

Plaintiff properly noticed the deposition of Defendant (twice).  Defendant did not object and did not appear for deposition.  Plaintiff need show nothing more.

The motion to compel the deposition of Defendant is granted.

The request for monetary sanctions is granted in part.  Plaintiff’s motion is granted, Defendant did not act with substantial justification, and the imposition of sanctions would not be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)  The Court sets sanctions in the amount of $1,412.96, calculated based on two hours of attorney time, multiplied by counsel’s reasonable billing rate of $350 per hour, plus one non-appearance fee charged by the court reporting service in the amount of $631.80, plus $81.16 in filing and related fees.  (Winter Decl., ¶ 16 & Exh. I.) 

Conclusion

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

The Court ORDERS Defendant 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC to produce the person most qualified to appear for deposition and give testimony under penalty of perjury on May __, 2025, at 10 am, by remote video conference.  The date, time, and manner of the deposition may be modified only by (1) an agreement in writing (including by email) of counsel for all parties or (2) an order of the Court.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide a link for the deposition to counsel for all parties by no later than 48 hours prior to the start of the deposition.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions.

The Court ORDERS Defendant 1151 Maple-1-AHPP LLC and its counsel of record, Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter, LLP, jointly and severally, to pay monetary sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act in the amount of $1,412.96 to Plaintiff (through counsel) within 30 days of notice.

The Court ORDERS Moving Party to give notice.