Case Number: BC709526 Hearing Date: October 31, 2019 Dept: 2

Akamtalu v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Defendant’s Two Motions to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Form Interrogatories, Set One, and Demand to Produce Certain Documents and Items, Set One; Request for Sanctions, filed on 09/17/2019, are GRANTED.

Defendant’s Reply brief does not dispute that Plaintiff has since served verified responses. Accordingly, an order compelling Plaintiff to respond to discovery is no longer necessary. However, the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel for the failure to timely respond to authorized methods of discovery, which is discovery abuse. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2023.010(a)(4). The amount of sanctions is set forth below.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Appear for her Deposition; Request for Sanctions, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition at a date and place duly noticed by Defendant within 75 miles of Plaintiff’s residence. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2025.250.

On July 11, 2019, Defendant’s attorneys served a deposition notice to take Plaintiff’s deposition on August 20, 2019. No written objections were served to the deposition notice. On August 19, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel conducted the MTA attorney stating that he could not appear for the deposition and that Plaintiff would not appear. On August 20, 2019, Defendant’s counsel sent a letter requesting new dates, but Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond. On September 17, 2019, this motion was filed.

After the motion was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant’s counsel that Plaintiff had moved to San Jose and would be available on various dates in San Jose. Plaintiff’s counsel also agreed to make Plaintiff available on Thanksgiving and the day after Thanksgiving, a Court holiday, which is unreasonable.

A party can move to compel a party’s deposition where the deponent fails to proceed with the examination or to produce for inspection any document described in the deposition notice. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2025.450. The deposition was duly noticed. The deposition was noticed for Los Angeles, but there was no objection to the location of the deposition and there has been no showing that Plaintiff did not live in Los Angeles at the time the deposition was noticed. Plaintiff does not argue that the notice was improper. Defendant attempted to meet and confer regarding dates, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond prior to the filing of the motion.

Thus, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling Plaintiff to appear for her deposition. Now that the Plaintiff lives in San Jose, the Court compels her to appear for a deposition at a location of Defendant’s choosing within 75 miles from Plaintiff’s current residence. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the date for the deposition, but in the event agreement cannot be reached, the Plaintiff is ordered to appear for the deposition at a date of Defendant’s choosing within the next 30 days.

Defendant is entitled to an award of sanctions against Plaintiff and counsel for the failure to appear for deposition without substantial justification. Cal. Code Civil Procedure § 2025.450(g)(1).

Accordingly, the Court awards total sanctions of $1,500 for all three motions against Plaintiff Ifunanyachukwu Akametalu and counsel Samuel Ogbogu.

The Moving Party is ordered to give notice.