Case Number: BC534897    Hearing Date: August 04, 2014    Dept: 92

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

BEVERLY SHERMAN,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
JEROME MCALPIN, et al.,
Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC534897

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

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #29
August 4, 2014

Plaintiff, Beverly Sherman’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant, Jerome McAlpin is Moot; the parties have agreed that the deposition will go forward on 8/15/14. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is Denied.

Plaintiff propounded a notice of deposition on Defendant on 6/02/14; the notice of deposition required Defendant to sit for deposition on 6/23/14. The parties met and conferred concerning deposition priority, but were unable to resolve the issues. On 7/07/14, Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking to compel Defendant’s deposition and seeking an award of sanctions.

The motion to compel is moot; the parties, after the motion was filed, agreed that the deposition will go forward on 8/15/14. The only remaining issue is the request for sanctions. The request is denied for several reasons. First, the motion fails to comply with CCP §§2025.450(b)(1) and (2); these sections require the moving papers to show good cause for production of the documents sought in the notice of motion, and also require the moving party to include a declaration that the moving party has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. The moving papers are devoid of a showing of good cause for production of documents, even though the notice of deposition seeks production of various categories of documents. Additionally, the Declaration of Counsel in support of the motion states some facts concerning communication about Plaintiff’s deposition, but is entirely devoid of a discussion of the parties’ communications concerning Defendant’s deposition or the meet and confer efforts that were made concerning Defendant’s deposition.

Second, the notice of motion is insufficient; per CCP §2023.040, the notice of motion must identify every person against whom sanctions are sought and the type of sanctions sought. The notice of motion fails to do so.

Third, while not an independent ground for denial of sanctions, the Court notes that the moving papers do not comply with CRC 3.1110(f), which requires exhibits to be properly tabbed. Plaintiff is ordered to comply with all Rules of Court in the future in connection with this action.

Dated this 4th day of August, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court