Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Raymond Ghermezian who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC562327 Hearing Date: April 12, 2018 Dept: 98

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT

On October 29, 2014, Plaintiffs Ana Cordon (“Plaintiff”) and Andrea Cordon (collectively, “Plaintiffs’) filed this action against Defendant TJ Golden Wok for negligence and premises liability relating to a February 6, 2014 trip and fall incident. Combined Properties Limited Partnership (DOE 1) (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiffs’ depositions and to impose monetary sanctions.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).)

On October 12, 2017, Defendant served a Notice of Deposition on Plaintiff. (Declaration of Mathew J. Vande Wydeven, ¶ 4.) However, at Plaintiff and counsel’s request, Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled three times until January 26, 2018, when Plaintiff failed to appear for her deposition and a certificate of non-appearance was taken and Defendant incurred a $140.00 court reporting fee. (Wydeven Decl., ¶¶ 5-11.)

Plaintiff’s counsel argues this Motion is moot, because Plaintiffs’ depositions were scheduled for April 5 and April 6, 2018. (Declaration of Raymond Ghermezian, ¶ 3.) Accordingly, the Motion to compel Plaintiff’s depositions is denied as MOOT.

However, defense counsel still seeks monetary sanctions. If a motion to compel a party’s attendance at deposition, or where any party or attorney attended a deposition in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction against the non-appearing deponent unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1), (g)(2).) Monetary sanctions in the amount of $590.00 are imposed against Plaintiff and her counsel of record, jointly and severally, for two hours preparing this Motion and attending the hearing, at defense counsel’s rate of $195.00 per hour, plus $140.00 court reporter fees and $60.00 filing fees, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.