Case Number: BC633941 Hearing Date: June 12, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

On September 13, 2016, Plaintiffs Julie Anne Hollowell and Mohammad Hosain Salami (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants David Valdivia and Maria Valdivia (collectively, “Defendants”) for motor vehicle negligence arising out of a September 15, 2014 accident. Defendants move to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions and monetary sanctions.

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).)

The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).)

“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).)

On January 3, 2019, defense counsel served a Notice of Taking Depositions on Plaintiffs, setting their deposition for March 4, 2019. (Declaration of Heather M. Roth, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Plaintiffs did not object to the deposition notices and failed to appear for their depositions. (Roth Decl., ¶ 3.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ counsel and sought available dates for Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Roth Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs’ counsel never responded. (Roth Decl., ¶ 5.)

Plaintiffs filed no opposition to these Motions and it is undisputed they failed to object or to appear for their properly-noticed depositions. Accordingly, the Motions to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions are GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to appear for their depositions within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, or other date to which the parties agree.

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).) On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).) The requests for monetary sanctions are GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $407.50, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.