Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV31648, Date: 2025-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV31648    Hearing Date: April 22, 2025    Dept: 29

Anguiano v. Edith Chin Trust
23STCV31648
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Choong S. Mok
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc.

Tentative

The motions are granted.

Background

On December 26, 2023, James Santiago Anguiano, Jr. (by and through his successor-in-interest), Maria Anguiano, and Raylene Anguiano (a minor by and through her guardian ad litem) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Edith Chin Trust, Sequoia Trust, Edith Chin (subsequently dismissed), and Does 1 through 50,  for negligence and premises liability arising out of the death of James Santiago Anguiano, Jr. on June 12, 2022, on property located on 1459 South Lorena Street in Los Angeles. 

On May 16, 2024, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Choong S. Mok (“Mok”) as Doe 1 and Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc. (“Crown”) as Doe 2.

On May 17, 2024, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Allied Universal Security as Doe 3 and David Nakamura (“Nakamura”) as Doe 4.

On June 20, 2024, Universal Protection Service LP dba Allied Universal Security Services (erroneously sued as Allied Universal Security) (“Universal”) filed an answer.

On June 27, 2024, Nakamura filed an answer.

On July 1, 2024, Crown and Mok filed an answer.

On October 23, 2024, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name named Premiere Roofing Supply, LLC (“Premiere”) as Doe 5.

On January 10, 2025, Premiere filed an answer.

On March 18, 2025, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Fiona Star LLC as Doe 6.

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed two discovery motions: (1) motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Mok; and (2) motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Crown.  Mok and Crown each filed an opposition on April 9, and Plaintiffs filed a single reply on April 15.

The Court is aware that there is another action (Case No. 23STCV27995) pending in this department that has not been related but involves some overlap of parties and facts.

Trial in this action is currently set for June 24, 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 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).) 

“Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124. See also L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26, Appendix 3.A(e) (reasonable consideration should be given to accommodating schedules in setting depositions).)

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

Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the depositions of appearance of Mok and Crown’s person most qualified (PMQ).

On November 21, 2024, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of Mok and Crown’s PMQ for December 23, 2024. (Lee Decls., Exhs. 1.)  Mok and Crown served timely objections on December 17, stating that they were not available on the scheduled date.  (Id., Exhs. 2.) That same day, Plaintiffs inquired about alternate deposition dates, and Plaintiffs followed up on January 6 and 16, 2025.  (Id., Exhs. 3-4.) Defendants responded on January 23 that they were available in February, Monday through Thursday, between 10:30 am and 3 pm.  (Id., Exhs. 5.)

On February 4, 2025, Plaintiffs noticed the depositions of Mok and Crown for February 26 (a Wednesday) and February 27 (a Thursday).  (Id., Exhs. 6-7.) Defendant Premiere served timely objections to the deposition notices, asserting that its counsel was not available on the scheduled date.  (Id., Exhs. 8.) On February 26 and 27, 2025, Plaintiffs took certificates of non-appearance of Mok and Crown.  (Id., Exhs. 9.) On March 4, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out about the non-appearances. (Id., Exhs. 11.)

On March 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this motion.  As of the filing of these motions, counsel for Defendants had not offered alternative dates for the depositions.  (Id., ¶ 13.)

The Court has reviewed the evidence in the record and the arguments of both sides. 

First, the Court finds that Plaintiffs properly noticed the depositions of Defendants Mok and Crown for February 26 and 27, 2025. 

Second, the Court finds that there no valid objection was served.  The only objection came from Premiere, and that was based on the unavailability of its counsel.  But that is not a proper objection under the Civil Discovery Act.  Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410 permits any party served with a deposition notice to objection on the ground that the notice “does not comply with Article 2 [Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.210 through 2025.295],” but nothing in the objection identified any defect under that portion of the Civil Discovery Act. 

If counsel for Premiere were truly unavailable for the deposition, Premiere’s remedy under section 2025.410 was to meet and confer and, if no resolution was reached, Premiere could have then filed a motion to stay the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)  Indeed, if merely serving an objection on the grounds of asserted “unavailability” were sufficient, depositions might never occur, particularly in a case like this one, with multiple parties represented by busy lawyers at large law firms.

Third, the Court understands that part of the reason that Defendants are (or were) attempting to delay these depositions was so that their motion to consolidate could be heard.  That motion was heard, and denied without prejudice on procedural grounds, on April 17.  But the filing of a motion to consolidate does not automatically stay discovery, and no stay of discovery is warranted here, where: (1) the two cases were filed in November and December 2023; (2) Mok and Crown appeared in this action in July 2024; (3) no motion to consolidate was filed until March 2025; (4) a judge of this court previously ruled that the two cases are not related; and (5) one of the two cases (this one) has a trial date of June 24, 2025.  Until and unless a motion to consolidate is granted, or the trial date is continued, the parties must prepare to conduct and complete their discovery in a timely fashion.

The motion to compel the depositions is granted.

The Court now turns to the request for sanctions.  That request is denied.  The Court finds that Mok and Crown improperly failed to appear for their depositions, but they acted with substantial justification under all of the circumstances, including the service of a timely objection by a co-defendant.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to compel the depositions of Defendant Choong S. Mok and Defendant Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Choong S. Mok to appear for deposition and give testimony under oath on May __, 2025, at 10:30 am, by remote videoconference technology.  The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to provide a link for the deposition to counsel for all parties at least 48 hours in advance of the deposition.  The date, time, and location/manner (remote or in-person) of the deposition may be modified only by (1) an agreement in writing (including by email) by counsel for all parties; or (2) a subsequent order of the Court.

The Court ORDERS Defendant Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc. to produce its person most qualified to appear for deposition and answers questions under penalty of perjury on May __, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., by remote videoconference technology.  The Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to provide a link for the deposition to counsel for all parties at least 48 hours in advance of the deposition.  The date, time, and location/manner (remote or in-person) of the deposition may be modified only by (1) an agreement in writing (including by email) by counsel for all parties; or (2) a subsequent order of the Court.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.