Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV21398, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV21398    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On June 8, 2021, plaintiffs Valeria Perez and Jose Serna (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant Haryutyun Mazmanian (“Defendant”) arising from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on June 14, 2019.  On May 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this motion for an order compelling Defendant to submit to a deposition and produce documents.  Plaintiffs also request monetary sanctions against Defendant and counsel of record. 

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).)

In opposition, defense counsel argues that neither he nor his client should be sanctioned.  He declares that he has had difficulty contacting his client and that he has attempted multiple times to find mutually agreeable dates for Defendant’s deposition.  (Opposition, Bui Decl., ¶¶ 8-9.) 

It is undisputed by the parties that Plaintiffs are entitled to depose Defendant and that Defendant has failed to appear pursuant to a deposition notice and did not object.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order compelling Defendant’s deposition.  Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED.  Defendant is ordered to appear for his deposition within 20 days and produce the documents requested in the deposition notice. 

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).) 

Plaintiffs did not file a reply brief and does not contest defense counsel has attempted to cooperate with scheduling Defendant’s deposition.  In these circumstances, the Court finds that it would be unjust to impose sanctions on defense counsel.  Instead, sanctions are imposed on Defendant only in the amount of $410, consisting of 1 hour at Plaintiff’s customary hourly fee of $350 and a $60 filing fee.

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.