Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV11687, Date: 2024-11-12 Tentative Ruling

On September 29, 2024, Plaintiff Maggie Parsons noticed the deposition of Defendant Robert Ozeran for the agreed date of October 11, 2024. (Frank Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.)

The day before the deposition, Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would not appear due to a self-incrimination issue with contempt proceedings in a different family law case. (Frank Decl. ¶¶ 5, 13 & Ex. B; see Cianci Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) Plaintiff proceeded to take a Certificate of Non-Appearance on October 11, 2024. (Frank Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C.)

Also on October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant’s deposition.

A motion to compel a deposition must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that states facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2016.040, 2025.450, subd. (a)(2).)

Plaintiff did not file the required declaration. Defendant’s evidence makes clear that Plaintiff did not even try to meet and confer before filing this motion.

On October 10, 2024, Defendant’s counsel in this case was informed by Defendant’s family law counsel that Plaintiff had filed a petition for contempt. (Cianci Decl. ¶ 7.) Concerned about self-incrimination, Defendant’s counsel told Plaintiff’s counsel that Defendant would not appear for a deposition until the expected resolution of the contempt petition on October 22, 2024. (Cianci Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 5; Frank Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the email and filed this motion the next day. (Cianci Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.) Since then, the family law contempt proceedings have been continued to February 4, 2025 because Plaintiff did not personally serve Defendant with the petition for contempt. (Cianci Decl. ¶ 13 & Ex. 6.)

In reply, Plaintiff states, “Counsel for plaintiff did send an email after receiving the objection meeting and conferring Counsel for defendants seem to omit the meet and confer correspondence when they raise lack of same in their opposition papers. And not a lot of room for negotiation here in a meet and confer – deponent appears or not. (Frank Decl. – Reply). Meeting and conferring after the non-appearance rather than before seems a little non-sequitur. And the meet and confer was conducted.” (Reply at p. 2.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares, “I did telephone counsel for defendants, left a voicemail and no return call (see Frank Decl. in moving papers).” (Frank Reply Decl. ¶ 2.) Nowhere in the first declaration does counsel refer to meet and confer phone calls or voicemails.

Plaintiff’s counsel also declares, “I sent an email after receiving the objection days (a court day) before the deposition explaining that the deponent was to appear and why and conducted a meet and confer and stated that the deposition would proceed as no protective order, stay, nor valid objection under the Code (see the moving papers and declaration). . . . So, I did send an email after receiving the objection meeting and conferring Counsel for defendants seem to omit the meet and confer correspondence when they raise lack of same in their opposition papers.” (Frank Reply Decl. ¶ 3.) The numerous exhibits to the declaration primarily relate to the family law contempt proceedings and are not relevant here. There is no evidence of an email from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel after Defendant cancelled his deposition appearance.

Plaintiff’s purported “meet and confer correspondence” is an October 23, 2024 email from Plaintiff’s counsel to Defendant’s counsel about an unspecified deposition. (Frank Reply Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. N.) Even if this was about Defendant’s deposition, it was sent twelve days after Plaintiff filed this motion.

“[T]he statute requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution” before filing a motion to compel. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1438.) “[T]he law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id. at p. 1439.) This was not done, and Plaintiff did not even attempt to do so.

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.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court