Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV14748, Date: 2022-12-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV14748 Hearing Date: December 7, 2022 Dept: 50
|
EARL DOUBERLEY, Plaintiff, vs. ALEXANDER
ANDREW, INC. (d/b/a FALLTECH),
et al. Defendants. |
Case No.: |
20STCV14748 |
|
Hearing
Date: |
December
7, 2022 |
|
|
Hearing
Time: 10:00 a.m. [TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF EARL DOUBERLEY’S ATTENDANCE AT DEPOSITION
NOTICED BY DEFENDANT PHOENIX INDUSTRIAL, INC. AND SANCTIONS
|
||
|
AND
RELATED CROSS-ACTION |
|
|
Background
Plaintiff Earl Douberley (“Plaintiff”) filed
this action on April 16, 2020 against Defendant Alexander Andrew, Inc. d/b/a
FallTech, alleging causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict products
liability – design defect, (3) strict products liability – manufacture defect,
(4) strict products liability – failure to warn, (5) breach of express
warranty, (6) breach of implied warranty, and (7) negligent misrepresentation. On February 9,
2022, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint
naming Phoenix
Industrial, Inc. (“Phoenix”) in place of “Doe 4.”
Phoenix now moves for an order commanding Plaintiff to attend his deposition and provide testimony on dates to be determined by this court. Phoenix also moves
for sanctions. No opposition to the motion was filed.
Discussion
As an initial matter, the Court notes that
on November 28, 2022, the Court held a hearing on Phoenix’s ex parte
application for an order compelling the deposition of Plaintiff or in the
alternative shortening time for hearing on Phoenix’s motion to compel
deposition and for IDC hearing. The Court also held an Informal Discovery
Conference (“IDC”) on November 28, 2022.
The Court’s November 28, 2022 minute order
provides, inter alia, that “[t]he
Deposition of plaintiff, Earl Douberley by defendant Phoenix Industrial Inc.,
will start on
November 30, 2022 at 2:00p.m. if possible, but
no later than 2:30 p.m. and will end by 5:30 p.m. The deposition of Kira
Douberley will commence after the completion of the plaintiff’s deposition if
necessary, the depositions will continue on December 2, 2022 at 2:30p.m. to
5:30p.m.” Accordingly, Phoenix’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is
moot.
Phoenix also
seeks $1,400 in sanctions for the costs and attorney’s fees incurred by Phoenix in connection with the instant motion.
(Stevens Decl., ¶ 11.) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), “[i]f a motion under subdivision (a)
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.”[1] As
set forth above, the motion is moot. Thus, the Court finds that Phoenix’s
request for monetary sanctions is also moot.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Phoenix’s motion is denied as moot.
Phoenix is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
DATED:
___________________________
Hon.
Teresa A. Beaudet
Judge,
Los Angeles Superior Court
[1]Pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a), “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the
action…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.”