Case Number: 17K07826 Hearing Date: June 05, 2018 Dept: 94

TENTATIVE RULING ON FEE:

Filing Fees

A motion must be brought separately against each party and discovery method at issue. The instant Motion should have been filed as two separate motions for each of Defendants: (a) a motion to compel Mr. Brown’s deposition and (b) a motion to compel Ms. Brown’s deposition. Because this is an improperly combined motion, only one filing fee was paid. Plaintiff is ordered to pay an additional filing fee and file proof of payment with the Court on the day of the hearing. If the additional fee is not paid, this Motion will be continued so that payment may be made.

TENTATIVE RULING ON MERITS:

Plaintiff Surfside Villas’s Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to appear for their depositions at 1055 N. Wilshire, Ste. 1480, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Plaintiff to provide the Court with dates and times for each of Defendants’ depositions at the hearing on this Motion.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Background

On June 20, 2017, Plaintiff Surfside Villas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Thomas Timothy Brown (“Mr. Brown”) and Vanessa Alicia Brown (“Ms. Brown”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to recover alleged unpaid homeowner association fees.

Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation, Mr. Brown agreed to appear for his deposition on March 22, 2018, and Ms. Brown agreed to appear for her deposition on March 29, 2018. (Motion, Exh. A ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendants admit they failed to appear for their deposition pursuant to the Stipulation. (Oppo., Adams Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions of Defendants (the “Motion”). On May 22, 2018, Defendants filed an opposition. On May 25, 2018, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to CCP § 94(b), a party can take “[o]ne oral or written deposition” of each adverse party. Service of a proper deposition notice must be “effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify . . . .” (CCP § 2025.280.) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party or party-affiliated deponent fails to appear or to proceed with the examination without having served a valid objection, the party noticing the deposition may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony. (Id. § 2025.450(a).)

Further, if such a motion is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . 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.” (Id. § 2025.450(g).)

Discussion

A. Meet and Confer Requirement

The motion shall be accompanied by a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good faith attempt at informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Id. § 2025.450(b).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Id. § 2016.040.)

Here, Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding their depositions via electronic mail on April 5, 2018 (Motion, Exh. C). Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort. (Reply p. 2.) Defendants do not dispute in their opposition that they failed to respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer effort. (See Oppo.) Accordingly, the Court is satisfied with Plaintiff’s meet-and-confer effort.

B. Merits

It is undisputed that Defendants failed to appear for their depositions pursuant to the Stipulation. That alone is sufficient to compel them to appear for their deposition under CCP § 2025.450(a).

In opposition, Defendants submit evidence that Mr. Brown had a medical appointment on the day of his scheduled deposition. (Oppo., Exh. A.) It is unclear to the Court why Defendants did show this to Plaintiff this during the meet and confer process and discuss alternative dates for Mr. Brown’s deposition. As for Ms. Brown, Defendants fail to provide evidence and reason why she failed to appear for her scheduled deposition.

In light of the foregoing, the Motion is GRANTED under 2025.450(a). Defendants are ordered to appear for their depositions at 1055 N. Wilshire, Ste. 1480, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Plaintiff to provide the Court with dates and times for each of Defendants’ depositions at the hearing on this Motion.

Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,662.50 against Defendants and their attorney of record, jointly and severally. (Notice of Motion p. 2.)

CCP § 2023.040 requires: “[a] request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought.”

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration fails to provide “facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought” (as separate from the memorandum of points and authority) as required by CCP § 2023.040. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party to give notice