Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 20STCV31098, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31098    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 14, 2020, Plaintiffs Kincy Fields; Mekigh Fields, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem; and Abriona Young-Fields, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, filed this action against Defendants Warner Center Summit LTD.; Dori T. Manusevitz; and GHP Management Corporation.

 On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff served a First Amended Notice for Manusevitz’s deposition.  (Salahuddin Decl., Ex. B.)  On March 1, 2023, Manusevitz served an objection on the grounds that “the deposition date was unilaterally scheduled and Defendant and/or her counsel is unavailable on that date.  Thus, Defendant will not be appearing on that date.  Defendant will work with counsel on a mutually convenience alternative date.”  (Salahuddin Decl., Ex. C.)  On March 23, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email to defense counsel to request deposition dates.  (Salahuddin Decl., Ex. D.)  Plaintiffs’ counsel did not receive a response.  (Salahuddin Decl. ¶ 6.)

On April 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Manusevitz’s deposition, with a request for sanctions of $3,061.65.

If a party to the action fails to appear for or proceed with an examination without making a valid objection under Section 2025.410, the party noticing the deposition may move to compel the deponent’s attendance and testimony.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)  Section 2025.410 provides for written objections to a deposition notice “that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210).”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410., subd. (a).)

Manusevitz argues that she has not failed to appear, and the notice of deposition “was objected to because if was unilaterally set and counsel for Defendant Dorit Manusevitz was not available at the time set.”  (Opposition at pp. 3-4.)  This is not a valid objection under Section 2025.410.  It is simply a myth that has emerged in the minds of many counsel that the law requires that depositions be agreed to before they are noticed.  Not so. 

The Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Dori T. Manusevitz and for Monetary Sanctions in the amount of $3,061.65 against Defendant Dori T. Manusevitz and/or Defendant’s Counsel for Misuse of the Discovery Process is GRANTED IN PART.

Manusevitz is ordered to appear for deposition within 21 days.

The request for sanctions is denied.  (See Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1) [sanctions not required when the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust].)  Plaintiffs did not properly meet and confer before filing this motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).  (See generally Salahuddin Decl.)  As counsel for Manusevitz notes, “A phone call between secretaries or attorneys could have easily remedied the scheduling difficulties without the need to waste the court’s valuable resources.”  (Opposition at p. 2.)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

         Dated this 18th day of May 2023