Case Number: BC507981 Hearing Date: June 12, 2014 Dept: 92

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

DEMITRIUS LITTLE, ET AL.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

THELMA FINLEY, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC507981

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL; DENYING REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #36
June 12, 2014

Defendant, Thelma Finley’s Motion to Compel is Granted. Plaintiff, Demitrius Little is ordered to appear for deposition on a date, time, and location to be agreed upon between Plaintiff and Defense Counsel, not more than ten days from today’s hearing date. If the parties cannot agree on deposition details, Defense Counsel may unilaterally set the deposition with five days’ notice. No sanctions are imposed.

Defendant propounded a notice of deposition on Plaintiffs on 7/02/13, which sought to take both plaintiffs’ depositions on 9/16/13. The parties communicated and agreed to change that date to 10/22/13. Prior to the continued deposition date, Counsel talked, and Plaintiffs’ Counsel explained that Plaintiff, Nieves could attend the deposition on 10/22/13, but Plaintiff Little could not. Counsel dispute, in their declarations, the details of this conversation, but it is clear the conversation was heated. On 10/15/13, Defense Counsel wrote to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and indicated that it was Plaintiffs who chose the 10/22/13 date, and that the date would stand firm. He indicated that he would be forced to file a motion to compel if Little did not appear, but he would take the motion off calendar if the deposition was completed prior to the hearing.

It appears neither party made any attempt to communicate about Little’s deposition from 10/15/13 until 3/19/14, when this motion was filed. In late May, Counsel met and conferred. Defense Counsel demanded that Plaintiffs’ Counsel pay the filing fees and attorneys’ fees associated with the motion in the amount of $660 and schedule the deposition in order to avoid hearing on the motion. Plaintiffs’ Counsel refused. The two were unable to resolve a date certain for the deposition.

The motion to compel is granted; Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to choose a date mutually agreeable for Plaintiff, Little’s deposition; the deposition must go forward within ten days unless the parties agree otherwise. If the parties are unable to agree, in good faith, on a date within ten days, Defense Counsel may unilaterally set Plaintiff’s deposition with five days’ notice to Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

No sanctions are imposed. The Court finds both parties are at fault for the failure of the deposition to go forward. Defense Counsel had sufficient notice that the deposition date was no longer available for Little, and it had only been continued once before. After the deposition, neither party communicated in any way. While it is true that Plaintiffs’ Counsel should have offered dates, there is also no explanation for Defense Counsel’s decision to wait five months, then file a motion to compel without any conversation or attempt to secure a new deposition date. In light of both attorneys’ failure to adequately accommodate and communicate, no sanctions are imposed.

Dated this 12th day of June, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court