Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Martin Horwitz who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC615636 Hearing Date: April 13, 2018 Dept: O

BC615636

TADDEO-BATES v. KHAN ET AL.

Defendants Ifran and Nilofer Khan’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff is GRANTED pursuant to CCP §2025.450. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay sanctions in the amount of $1439.40. Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial Date is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” CCP §2025.450(a).

“A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” CCP §2025.450(b).

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP §2025.450(g).

The undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff failed to appear at deposition on seven separate occasions. Plaintiff indicates in her opposition that she agrees to sit for deposition on 4/12/18, but then subsequently served a Notice of Objection to appearing for deposition on 4/12/18. For this reason, the request to compel deposition is clearly not moot and the sanctions requested are substantially justified. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within 10 days if she has not done so by 4/13/18.

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel in the amount of$5,309.40 for 6.5 hours of meet and confer, 12.4 hours of motion and reply prep, 4.5 hours travel time, a filing fee of $60 and court reporter fees in the amount of $279.40 for nonappearance. The applicable hourly rate is $175. The Court orders Plaintiff and her counsel to pay sanctions in the amount of $1439.40.

Motion to Continue Trial Date

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” CRC 3.1332(a); see also CRC 3.1332(c)—“continuances of trial are disfavored.” Despite the “disfavored” nature of trial continuances, each case must be considered on its own merits. CRC 3.1332(c). An affirmative showing of “good cause” according to Judicial Council standards is required on a motion for continuance before or during trial. CRC 3.1332(c).

The following circumstances may indicate the presence of good cause warranting a continuance: (1) unavailability of essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness or other excusable circumstances [CRC 3.1332(c)(1)]; (2) unavailability of a party because of death, illness or other excusable circumstances [CRC 3.1332(c)(2)]; (3) unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness or other excusable circumstances [CRC 3.1332(c)(3)]; (4) substitution of trial counsel where there is an “affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice” [CRC 3.1332(c)(4)]; (5) addition of a new party if the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery or the other parties have not had an adequate opportunity to prepare for trial in regard to the new party [CRC 3.1332(c)(5)(A), (B)]; (6) a party’s inability to obtain essential testimony, documents or other material evidence despite diligent efforts [CRC 3.1332(c)(6)]; or (7) a significant unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial [CRC 3.1332(c)(7)].

In ruling on a motion for trial continuance, the court will normally consider all relevant matters, including: (1) proximity of the trial date; (2) any previous continuances, extensions of time or delays of trial; (3) length of the requested continuance; (4) availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the continuance request; (5) prejudice the parties or witnesses may suffer if there is a continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preference, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (8) whether all parties have stipulated to the continuance; (9) whether the “interests of justice” are best served by a continuance, trial of the matter or imposing conditions on the continuance; and (10) “(a)ny other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” [CRC 3.1332(d)]

Defendants move to continue the trial date based on Plaintiff’s refusal to sit for deposition. Defendants contend Plaintiff has refused to sit for deposition in the last two years and Plaintiff’s refusal to do so has prevented Defendants from being able to move for summary judgment and prepare for trial. Good cause for a trial continuance is established by a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or material evidence, as well as an unexpected change in the status of the case that renders the case not ready for trial. Trial is scheduled for 6/18/18, only two months away. However, Plaintiff has not yet been deposed, solely because she has unilaterally refused to appear. In order for Defendants to prepare for trial, the trial date and all cutoffs must be continued so that they can depose Plaintiff and conduct any further discovery necessitated by the deposition.