Case Number: 19STCV15730 Hearing Date: October 25, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF MARTIN RAMOS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On May 6, 2019, plaintiffs Jesus Delgado and Martin Ramos filed this action against defendants Ryan Thibodaux and Justin Thibodaux (“Defendants”) for injuries arising from a traffic collision on January 27, 2018. On August 5, 2019, Defendants served a deposition notice on Martin Ramos and set the deposition for September 13, 2019. Martin Ramos did not serve objections. On September 13, 2019, Mr. Ramos did not appear for his deposition. Mr. Ramos’s counsel informed defense counsel that he failed to put the deposition on calendar. Defendants seek an order compelling Mr. Ramos’s attendance at his deposition. Plaintiff filed no opposition.

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).)

Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Ramos failed to appear for his deposition. Thus, Defendants’ unopposed motion is GRANTED, and Mr. Ramos is ordered to appear for his deposition within 30 days of the date of this order.

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).)

Defendants incurred $591.70 for the court reporter and videographer due to Mr. Ramos’s nonappearance. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ request and imposes sanctions in the amount of $591.70 upon Barry Fisher, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.