Plaintiff ARACELI CAMO makes a prima facie showing that on 1/15/14 she served her Second Amended Notice of Person Most Knowledgeable Deposition and Request for Production of Documents on Defendant NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKETS INC., but that Defendant and its PMK failed to produce the documents requested. Despite reasonable meet and confer efforts, Defendant still failed to produce the documents. (See generally Innabi Decl.) Plaintiff represents and Defendant admits that Defendant failed to serve any written objection prior to the deposition. (CCP 2025.410.)

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (CCP 2025.450 (a).) Within 14 calendar days, Defendant and/or its PMK shall produce all responsive documents, without objection.

The court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions. Within 30 calendar days, Defendant shall pay $2,509.90 to Plaintiff, through Plaintiff’s counsel of record. (CCP 2025.450 (g)(1); CCP 2023.010 (d), (h), (i).)

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the motion is defective because it was not brought under CCP 2025.480. But that code section only applies to non-party deponents. Here, the motion to compel production of documents from a party deponent is properly governed by CCP 2025.450.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff waived her right to obtain the documents because she failed to make a supplemental oral request for them on the record at the PMK deposition. This argument fails because Defendant cites no case law or statutory authority in support of this dubious proposition.

The plain language of CCP 2025.280 (a) expressly requires Defendant and its PMK to produce documents at the deposition, if properly served with the deposition notice. “The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (CCP 2025.280 (a).)

CCP 2025.280 contains no express requirement that the moving party make a supplemental oral request on the record.

Defendant argues that while it did not file a written objection to the notice of deposition under CCP 2025.410, it still retained the right to object to evidence or questions at the deposition. But this point is irrelevant and confuses Defendant’s obligation to produce documents with Defendant’s right to object to improper questions or evidence raised by Plaintiff at the deposition.

The court finds that all of the arguments raised in Defendant’s Opposition lack merit. The court also finds that Defendant failed to properly respond to a valid discovery request, opposed this motion unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, and failed to properly respond to Plaintiff’s reasonable meet and confer efforts. (CCP 2025.450 (g)(1); CCP 2023.010 (d), (h), (i).)

Time shall run from service of the minute order. Plaintiff’s counsel shall give notice of this ruling.