Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01168639, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ (Lizbeth Vergara Lopez and Byron Lopez) Motion for Order Compelling Deposition of Defendant Dimple Mnachandia, D.D.S. (Motion), filed on 8-16-22 under ROA No. 219, is DENIED as MOOT.

 

Defendants’ (Dimple Manchandia, D.D.S. and Dimple Manchandia DDS, Inc. dba Dentistry Blossom) Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition of Dimple Manchandia, D.D.S. (Opposition), filed on 12-2-22 under ROA No. 249, states, “As set forth below, the defendants were unaware of the motion to compel until the date of this filing when notified by the plaintiff’s counsel. Further, since the deposition has been completed and dates for the deposition were provided the same day as this motion was filed, the plaintiffs’ insistence on moving forward with the motion is in bad faith and monetary sanctions should not be awarded.” (Opposition; 2:9-14.)

 

The declaration in support of the Opposition states, “It was not until plaintiff’s counsel sent an email on December 2, 2022, notifying me that my office had failed to file an opposition that I became aware that a Motion to Compel Dr. Manchandia’s Deposition had in fact been filed. Attached as Exhibit E to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the email. Further, as soon as I discovered there was a motion, counsel in my office again called up the purported service email and clicked and the link and was again directed only to the Motion to Quash. My office only received a copy of the Motion to Compel when it was ordered directly from the Court’s website on December 2, 2022. Attached as Exhibit F to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the receipt. Since the defendants had provided the deposition dates in August 2022 and the deposition had proceeded in September 2022 and completed by November 2022, I had no idea that Plaintiffs’ counsel truly believed a motion to compel was necessary.” (Kamel Decl., ¶ 8.)

 

Since the parties have completed the deposition that is the subject of this Motion, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ (Lizbeth Vergara Lopez and Byron Lopez) Motion for Order Compelling Deposition of Defendant Dimple Mnachandia, D.D.S. (Motion), filed on 8-16-22 under ROA No. 219, as MOOT.  To the extent the Motion is still on calendar for the court to address the issue of sanctions, the court DENIES the request for a monetary sanction under these circumstances is unjust.  On 8-10-22, Defendants indicated that they were trying to coordinate deposition dates for Defendant—Dr. Manchandia. (Pardo Decl., ¶ 16 and Exhibit M.)  Since Defendants were willing to make Dr. Manchandia available for deposition and Dr. Manchandia attended and completed the deposition, the court finds a monetary sanction under these circumstances is unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

 

Defendants are to give notice.