Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 23STCV14931, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV14931    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Hyungsoo Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 27, 2023 against Defendants JNA Engineering Inc. d/b/a JNA Enterprise and Suk Joo Lee (“Lee”). The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, (2) failure to pay proper overtime, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to provide rest periods,

(5) knowing and intentional failure to maintain and provide accurate payroll records, (6) willful failure to pay wages due at termination, and (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.  

Plaintiff now moves for “an order to Compel the Deposition of Defendant SUK JOO LEE…within 7 days of this Court’s ruling, and…For Sanctions jointly and severally in the amount of $3,375.00 against Defendant SUK JOO LEE and defense counsel, Haewon Kim, Esq.” The motion is unopposed.[1]

Discussion

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.280, subdivision (a), “[t]he service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 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 of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (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 of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b) provides:

            “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

Plaintiff’s counsel’s supporting declaration provides, inter alia, that “[o]n February 15, 2024, Plaintiff served Defendant [Suk Joo Lee] with a deposition notice for March 8, 2024.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) “On February 20, 2024, defense counsel (Haewon Kim, Esq.) replied stating his office is not available for deposition on March 8, 2024.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 4.) “On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff sent an email to the defense counsel requesting other available dates in March,” and “[o]n February 26, 2024, Plaintiff sent a second email to the defense asking requesting other available dates in March.” (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) “On March 11, 2024, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel stating he cannot get a hold of his client.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that “[a]fter almost 3 months, no deposition of the Defendant has taken place. Since the last email response from Haewon Kim, Esq. on March 11, 2024, there has been no other communication from him.” (Kim Decl., ¶ 8.)

On July 3, 2024, an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was held in this action. The Court’s July 3, 2024 minute order provides, inter alia, that “Plaintiff has fulfilled the IDC requirements.”[2] 

As set forth above, “[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…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).) Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated grounds for an order compelling the deposition of Lee.

Lastly, Plaintiff seeks sanctions “jointly and severally in the amount of $3,375.00 against Defendant SUK JOO LEE and defense counsel, Haewon Kim, Esq.” (Notice of Mot. at p. 1:27-28.) In support of Plaintiff’s request for sanctions, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010, subdivision (h), which provides that “[m]isuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following:…(h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” Plaintiff notes that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.”

However, the Court notes that Lee does not oppose the instant motion. Thus, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has shown that monetary sanctions are warranted against Lee for “opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (h).) Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order to compel the deposition of Lee is granted. The Court orders Lee to appear for deposition on ____________ at ____ a.m., at the following location:  _________________________________________. 

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this Order. 

DATED:  November 13, 2024                       ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court