Case Number: BC665631 Hearing Date: October 16, 2018 Dept: 4

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Gladis Campos

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2017, plaintiffs Gladis Campos and Estuardo Najarro, a minor by and through is guardian ad litem, Rene Najarro, filed a complaint against defendant Los Angeles County MTA for negligence. Plaintiffs allege that on October 4, 2016, while passengers on a bus, defendant Doe 1 was negligent and careless in his operation of the bus, which caused plaintiffs to fall and suffer injuries.

On August 17, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amendment, designating driver La Chon Love as Doe 1.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests an order compelling plaintiff Gladis Campos to appear for her deposition on October 30, 2018, at 10:30 p.m.

CCP §2025.450(a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , 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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”

CCP § 2025.450(b) provides, “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.”

On January 30, 2018, defendant noticed plaintiff’s deposition for March 15, 2018. Thereafter, defense counsel agreed to reschedule the deposition. On May 4, 2018, defendant noticed plaintiff’s deposition for June 19, 2018. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the date, contending that neither she nor plaintiff were available. On May 31, 2018, defendant noticed plaintiff’s deposition for July 17, 2018. On July 9, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that plaintiff would appear for her deposition. On July 16, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel cancelled the deposition. Defense counsel was invoiced for $385 for the late cancellation of the Spanish interpreter. On July 19, 2018, defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to plaintiffs’ counsel. On August 7, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel sent an email indicating that plaintiff was available on

certain dates, including September 25, 2018. On September 6, 2018, defendant noticed plaintiff’s deposition for September 25, 2018. Defendant contends that the motion was filed on September 19, 2018 because plaintiff gave no assurance that she would appear for deposition.

In opposition, plaintiff contends that she appeared for her deposition on September 25, 2018. Plaintiff was on her way to the deposition when her car broke down. Plaintiff’s counsel found alternate transportation and she arrived at her deposition approximately 50 minutes late. Her deposition began about 11:35 a.m. The court reporter indicated that she could not stay past 12:30 p.m. but agreed to stay until 1:00 p.m. Another court reporter was purportedly found to be there in about 45 minutes but did not show up. At 2:00 p.m. defense counsel indicated that the deposition would have to be continued. Plaintiff contends that she should not have to appear again because of defense counsel’s failure to properly schedule a court reporter.

Defendant requests $1,825 in sanctions against plaintiff and/or her counsel Regina Lotardo, Esq. and/or the Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi. Plaintiff requests $4,675 in sanctions. The court denies the parties’ request for sanctions, except as to $385 for the cancellation fee for Spanish interpreter.

Defendant is entitled to complete the deposition. Plaintiff did not appear for her deposition until almost an hour late. As defendant contends, had she arrived on time, it would have been completed by the time the court reporter had to leave.

The motion is therefore GRANTED

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her deposition on October 30, 2018, at 10:30 p.m., at the Thomas Law Firm Incorporated, 5001 Airport Plaza Drive, Suite 240, Long Beach.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay $385 for cancellation of the Spanish interpreter within 30 days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 16, 2018

_____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court