tigran martirosyan v. aaron unis

Case Number: BC687388 Hearing Date: November 19, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

tigran martirosyan, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

aaron unis, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC687388

Hearing Date: November 19, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motions to compel depositions of PLAINTIFFS

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Karo Martirosyan and Angela Martirosyan (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Aaron Unis (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendant moves to compel the depositions of Plaintiffs, which plaintiffs oppose. The motions are granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if a party to the action fails to appear for deposition after service of a deposition notice and the party has not served a valid objection to that deposition notice, the party that noticed the deposition may move for an order to compel the deponent to attend and testify at deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) DISCUSSION

Defendant has the right to take Plaintiffs’ depositions without leave of the Court. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.210, subd. (a).) Here, Plaintiffs have refused to appear for deposition on the basis that they are minors. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that they need not appear for deposition if they have not yet reached the age of majority. Indeed, Plaintiffs have put their injuries at issue by filing this lawsuit, so they cannot now refuse to submit to depositions. If Plaintiffs contend their depositions would result in “unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense . . . ,” Plaintiffs should have filed a motion for protective order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420.) Plaintiffs did not do so. Nor would the Court be inclined to grant such a motion because Plaintiffs are parties to the case, meaning they chose to put their injuries at issue, and they are percipient witnesses to the underlying collision. Accordingly, the motions to compel are granted.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs and counsel-of-record in the amount of $961.65. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to appear for deposition a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Simply, Plaintiffs’ opposition has no merit, and the Court is surprised that a motion on this issue was necessary. Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs and their counsel-of-record, Arman Saakyan, to pay sanctions in the amount of $961.65, which is reasonable under the circumstances.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court grants the motion to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions. Plaintiffs shall submit to depositions within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. The Court orders Plaintiffs and their counsel-of-record, Arman Saakyan, to pay sanctions in the amount of $961.65 within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: November 19, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *