Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV12844, Date: 2023-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12844    Hearing Date: September 14, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 2, 2023, Defendant General Motors LLC sent a letter to Plaintiff Eliser Zamora about taking his deposition.  (Sentenac Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond or provide any dates for the deposition.  (Sentenac Decl. ¶ 5.)  Defendant followed up multiple times without success.  (Sentenac Decl. ¶ 6.)

On August 4, 2023, Defendant sent what it calls a “formal notice” for Plaintiff’s deposition (and the deposition of other plaintiffs in other cases), and it “made clear that GM remained willing to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition for a mutually convenient date and time and that it was still willing to work with Plaintiff’s counsel on an organized process for exchanging discovery.”  (Sentenac Decl. ¶ 8.)  “To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has refused to produce Plaintiff for deposition.”  (Sentenac Decl. ¶ 9.)

On August 18, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

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).)

Defendant’s notice of deposition did not, in fact, notice a deposition.  Defendant sent an “OMNIBUS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS IDENTIFIED IN APPENDIX A,” with the date identified as “To Be Agreed To By the Parties.”  (Sentenac Decl., Ex. A.)  Although Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s counsel is not cooperating with providing dates for scheduling a deposition, that is not a ground for a motion to compel deposition.

The Court is guessing that Defendant subscribes to the common belief that depositions cannot be noticed until after a date is agreed on by the parties and that to do otherwise is to “unilaterally” set the deposition which is improper.  It is not improper to “unilaterally” pick a date.  And pick a date you must in order to have a proper notice.

Because Plaintiff has not failed to appear for a properly noticed deposition, the motion is DENIED.

The Motion to Compel Deposition is DENIED.

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.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 14th day of September 2023