Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV00277, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 22STCV00277 Hearing Date: January 21, 2025 Dept: 45
Jimenez v. 25
Art, L.P., et al.
Motion to Compel
Deposition
Date of Hearing: January
21, 2025 Trial Date: January 12, 2026
Department: 45 Case
No.: 22STCV00277
Moving Party: Defendants
25 Art, L.P.; and Frederick Leeds
Responding Party: N/A - Unopposed
BACKGROUND
Factual and Procedural
Background
On January 4, 2022, Lester Jimenez
(Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against 25 Art, L.P. (25 Art); Frederick Leeds
(Leeds), and David Oved (Oved) containing two causes of action: (1) negligence
and (2) premises liability. The action stems from a fall Plaintiff suffered from
his fourth-floor fire escape. On March 25, 2022, 24 Art, Leeds, and Oved filed
a Cross-Complaint against unknown Cross-Defendants for indemnity.
On March 12, 2024, 25 Art and Leeds
(Moving Defendants) filed the motion now before the Court for an Order
Compelling Oliver Leon to Comply with the Deposition Subpoena for Personal
Appearance and Production of Documents. Moving Defendants also request $5,615.55
in monetary sanctions. No opposition was filed.
[Tentative] Ruling
Moving
Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Oliver Leon to Comply with the
Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents is GRANTED.
The accompanying request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED but in a
reduced amount.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion lies to
compel deposition attendance and document production, after service of a
deposition notice, where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a
deposition, without having served a valid objection. (Code Civ. Proc.
§2025.450(a).) No meet and confer is required to compel initial deposition
attendance, but instead there must be a declaration showing that moving party
inquired about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450(b)(2).)
“Implicit in the
requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the
nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and
make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko
v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th
1109, 1124 (“Leko”). See also
L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26, Appendix 3.A(e) (reasonable consideration should be given to
accommodating schedules in setting depositions).)
ANALYSIS
In their moving papers, Moving Defendants
state Plaintiff identified Oliver Leon (Leon) as a witness to the fall
Plaintiff suffered. Moving Defendants state Plaintiff was intoxicated on the
day of the incident and that Leon was drinking with Plaintiff prior to the
incident. Although Moving Defendants made contact with Leon, Leon never
provided an address at which to be served, therefore Moving Defendants hired a
private investigator who identified 2706 S. Orange Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90016
as his residence.
Moving
Defendants contend Leon was served on February 4, 2024 with a copy of the
subpoena and a request for production of documents. (Moving Papers, 2:18-19.)
The subpoena set March 6, 2024 as the deposition date. On March 6, 2024 Leon
did not appear for the deposition. The
court finds that Leon was properly served with the subpoena on February 4 and
failed to appear at his deposition.
Defendants timely moved to compel his appearance by filing this motion within
sixty days of the non-appearance on March 6.
CONCLUSION
Moving
Defendant’s Motion for an Order Compelling Oliver Leon to Comply with the
Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents is GRANTED. Leon ordered to appear for deposition within
30 days. The court grants sanctions in
the amount of $1790.55 for two hours of work at counsel’s hourly rate of $450,
the non-appearance fee and the cost of filing, payable to Leon to defendant’s
counsel within 30 days.