Case Number: PC054490 Hearing Date: June 11, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

CAROLE A. CASTEEN, M.D.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

GEORGE CHARNOCK, M.D., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: PC054490

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #45
June 11, 2014

Defendant, George Charnock, M.D.’s Motion to Compel is Granted. Plaintiff is ordered to sit for deposition on 6/19/14, per the parties’ agreement. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1262.50.

Defendant propounded a notice of deposition on Plaintiff on 7/11/13, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for 9/24/13. The parties met and conferred in an attempt to reschedule the deposition for a date mutually agreeable to all parties, but were unable to do so. On 3/12/14, Defendant propounded a notice of deposition on Plaintiff, setting the deposition for 4/02/14. Plaintiff’s counsel communicated that this date was not available, but did not respond to Defendant’s attempts to communicate to reschedule the deposition. Defendant therefore left the 4/02/14 deposition date on calendar, and Plaintiff failed to appear, resulting in a certificate of non-appearance.

On 4/10/14, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel, setting if for hearing on 6/11/14. At some point thereafter, the parties agreed that the deposition should go forward on 6/19/14, and it is currently scheduled to go forward at that time. Defendant has chosen, however, not to take the motion off calendar, both because Defendant is not confident that the deposition will go forward without a court order, and also because Defendant seeks imposition of sanctions based on Plaintiff’s conduct in failing to communicate about the deposition.

The motion to compel the deposition is granted. CCP §2025.450. The Court notes that Defendant seeks production of 26 categories of documents in connection with the notice of deposition. As Plaintiff correctly notes in opposition, Defendant’s motion failed to comply with §2025.450(b)(1), which requires Defendant to show “good cause” for production of the documents sought in connection with a motion to compel. The Court therefore does not expressly grant the motion to compel production of documents in connection with the deposition, but orders the parties to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve any issues relating to production of documents. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition on 6/19/14 at the time and place the parties have agreed to.

The remaining issue is whether to impose sanctions. Defense Counsel details the multiple attempts that were made to schedule this deposition, and Plaintiff’s Counsel acknowledges that his heavy trial schedule has prevented him from communicating properly with Defense Counsel concerning the scheduling of the deposition. Counsel is obligated, despite any trial obligations, to ensure proper communication concerning his ongoing cases. Notably, Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that he was in trial in September, October, November, January, February, April, and May. If Plaintiff’s Counsel is not able to keep up with his trial obligations while also maintaining his practice, he needs to make decisions about the running of his practice to allow him to do so. One cannot simply claim to be in trial seven months out of nine and successfully avoid discovery obligations and sanctions. The request for sanctions is granted. The amount is reasonable and fully supported by Defense Counsel’s declaration; it is therefore granted in full. The Court notes that Defendant sought imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff, personally, but not against Counsel. Sanctions are therefore imposed solely on Plaintiff.

Dated this 11th day of June, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court