Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21STCV26195, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26195    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 16, 2021, plaintiff Barbara Russo (“Russo”) filed this action against defendants Nak Rancho 18, LLC and Neissan Koroghli arising from injuries sustained when a backyard deck collapsed.  On January 6, 2022, Russo filed the operative First Amended Complaint which added Thoren Rand (“Rand”) as a plaintiff and Azita Koroghli as a defendant. 

On March 18, 2022, Nak Rancho 18, LLC, Neissan Koroghli, and Azita Koroghli (collectively, “Defendants”) served Rand with Demand for Production of Documents (Set One).  Rand did not serve any discovery responses.  On March 18, 2022, Defendants also served Plaintiffs with deposition notices scheduling their depositions for June 6, 2022.  Neither Russo nor Rand appeared at their depositions. 

Defendants filed their motions on June 30, 2022, requesting the Court order Russo and Rand to attend remote depositions on October 24, 2022 or on another mutually convenient date within 10 days of the hearing date on this motion.  Defendants also seek monetary sanctions. 

Where a party fails to serve timely responses to discovery requests, the court may make an order compelling responses.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, 2031.300; Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 403.)   A party that fails to serve timely responses waives any objections to the request, including ones based on privilege or the protection of attorney work product.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (a), 2031.300, subd. (a).)

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).)

Neither Russo nor Rand opposed these motions and it is undisputed Rand did not serve responses to Defendants’ written discovery requests and that neither appeared for their noticed depositions.  Accordingly, Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.  Rand is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to Defendants’ Demand for Production of Documents (Set One) within 20 days of the date of this Order.  Russo and Rand are ordered to appear for their remote depositions on October 24, 2022, at 10:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., respectively.  Alternatively, the parties are to meet and confer to determine a mutually agreeable date within 20 days of the date of this hearing. 

The Code of Civil Procedure provides that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)  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).)  The Court finds no evidence of substantial justification or circumstances that would make sanctions unjust. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Russo and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $660.00 for 1 hour at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $350.00, $60.00 in filing fees, and $250 for the certificate of non-appearance, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Rand and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $1,070.00 for 2 hours at defense counsel’s hourly rate of $350.00, $120.00 in filing fees, and $250 for the certificate of non-appearance, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this Order.

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.