Case Number: BC569420 Hearing Date: June 06, 2018 Dept: 2

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Armineh Vartanians; Request for Sanctions, filed on 5/4/18, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff timely served the opposition on 5/23/18, but Defendant argues he did not receive it until six days later. Defendant also did not receive the motion by electronic mail. The court has discretion to consider late papers in favor of the strong policy favoring disposition of the case on the merits. Kapitanski v. Von’s (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32. If there is any resulting prejudice, the court can continue the hearing. Mann v. Crachiolo (1985) 38 Cal.3d 18, 30. Defendant did not suffer any prejudice since Defendant was able to file a reply brief which has been considered.

A party can move to compel another’s deposition where the deponent fails to appear or proceed with it. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450. Defense counsel has complied with the statutory requirements to meet and confer since Defendant first set Plaintiff’s deposition for 8/30/17. Declaration of Torosian, ¶¶ 2, 4, 10, 13; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 2025.450(b)(2). Since that time Defendant continued the deposition four times. Declaration of Torosian, ¶¶ 3, 5, 9.

Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the delay in producing Plaintiff for deposition despite Defendant’s numerous attempts to schedule it for the past seven months.

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, Defendant was not required to file a separate statement since the motion does not concern responses to request for discovery. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(b).
The court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff, who has not shown substantial justification for failing to proceed with the deposition. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1). Moving party is ordered to give notice.