Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV37351, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37351    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

          On October 17, 2019, plaintiff Raquel Lisa Padilla filed this action against defendant Alfredo Ulloa Ramirez (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on October 26, 2017.  Plaintiff also named Karen Portillo and Jose Soto as defendants who were involved in two other motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff dismissed Portillo and Soto from the action on September 8, 2020, and October 27, 2020, respectively, leaving Defendant in the action.

          On February 2, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,4100.  The hearing was scheduled for July 6, 2022, but rescheduled to September 30, 2022, due to the Court’s unavailability.  Defendant was ordered to give notice of the hearing date, but there is no indication that Defendant served a notice of hearing on record.  Nevertheless, because the Court also sent the minute order to Plaintiff notifying counsel of the new hearing date, the Court proceeds to analyze the motion on its merits.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Here, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for September 27, 2021, by serving a deposition notice on September 8. 2021. (Motion, Ex. E.)  On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff appeared but claimed to be overwhelmed by emotion after less than an hour of testimony, so the deposition session was concluded.  (Motion, Kahn Decl., ¶ 8.)  After the deposition session, defense counsel demanded Plaintiff’s deposition resume on October 4, 2021.  Although Plaintiff’s counsel responded to defense counsel’s email, no meaningful effort has been made to schedule another deposition session.  (Kahn Decl., ¶ 9.) 

Defendant’s motion pursuant to section 2025.450 is defective because Defendant did not serve a deposition notice for October 4, 2021.  The only deposition notice attached to the motion is the one which scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition for September 27, 2021. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)  On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.