Case Number: BC657478 Hearing Date: April 03, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Miriam Laniado,

Plaintiff,

v.

Daniel Legaspi Casillas, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC657478

Hearing Date: April 3, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

defendantS’ motion for order compelling plaintiff’s attendance and testimony at deposition

In this action, Plaintiff Miriam Laniado (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured in a motor vehicle collision involving Defendants Daniel Legaspi Casillas and Grema Casillas (“Defendants”). The incident occurred on March 15, 2017. The complaint, filed April 27, 2017, alleges causes of action for motor vehicle and negligence.

Defendants move for an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to her deposition and for sanctions against Plaintiff for failure to appear at deposition. However, this motion is denied for the following defects.

First, this motion was improperly noticed only on Plaintiff and not on Plaintiff’s counsel. On November 8, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. However, the Court’s November 8, 2017 order made clear that “[t]he order will become effective upon the filing of a proof of service of a signed copy of the order on Plaintiff.” As Plaintiff’s counsel did not file a proof of service of the Court’s November 8, 2017 order until March 27, 2018, Ari Friedman remained the counsel of record when Defendants filed and served the instant motion on February 2, 2018. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion was not properly noticed.

Second, and more importantly, under CCP § 2025.450(b)(2) a motion to compel the deposition of a party to the action must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent failed to attend the deposition, a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. The declaration submitted by Defense counsel in this case does not show any efforts to meet and confer with the Plaintiff. Nor does Defense counsel’s declaration demonstrate any effort to inquire about the nonappearance. The motion is therefore also deficient on those grounds.

Defendants’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is denied without prejudice.

Defendants are ordered to provide notice of this order to Plaintiff.

DATED: April 3, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court