Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV24324, Date: 2025-04-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV24324 Hearing Date: April 9, 2025 Dept: 29
Robles v. LA Express One Inc.
23STCV24324
Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On October
5, 2023, Lisa Robles (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against LA Express One Inc.,
Oscar JR Deleon, and Does 1 through 50 for motor vehicle negligence and general
negligence arising out of an accident on April 22, 2022.
On November 28, 2023, Defendant Oscar
Deleon Jr. (erroneously sued as Oscar JR Deleon) (“Deleon”) filed an answer.
On January 29, 2024, Infinity
Insurance Company (“Infinity”) filed a complaint in intervention on behalf of LA
Express One Inc.
On March 7, 2025, Deleon and Infinity
(collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to compel the deposition
of Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an
opposition on March 26, and Defendants filed a reply on April 2.
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 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).)
Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(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.”
(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
On February 21, 2025, Defendants noticed
Plaintiff’s deposition for March 4. (Park Decl. ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Plaintiff
served an objection on February 26, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4 & Exh B.)
Plaintiff did not appear for deposition on March 4. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6 &
Exh. C.)
Defendants now move to compel the deposition
of Plaintiff.
The motion is denied for two independent
reasons.
First, the motion is not accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration or a declaration stating that Defendants contacted
Plaintiff to inquire about the nonappearance.
This is a mandatory statutory requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) Defendants may well be entitled to depose
Plaintiff, but to obtain a court order compelling the deposition, Defendants
must comply with all statutory requirements.
Second, and independently, Plaintiff served a valid objection to
the deposition notice. (Id., subd. (a).) A deposition notice must be served at least
10 days before the deposition date.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.270, subd. (a).) Two additional court days are added when the
notice is served electronically. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B).)
Here, the deposition was noticed for March 4, 2025. The last day for personal service of the deposition
notice was 10 days earlier, or February 22, 2025. The last day for electronic service was on
February 20. Defendants served the
notice electronically, however, and did not do so until February 21. That was one day late. Plaintiff’s timeliness objection, therefore,
was valid.
Conclusion
The Court
DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.
Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.