Case Number: 19STCV12293 Hearing Date: March 10, 2020 Dept: 32

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 32

Paul torres,

Plaintiff,

v.

edwin trucking, inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19STCV12293

Hearing Date: March 10, 2020

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for order compelling Defendant to respond to deposition questions

Plaintiff Paul Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Edwin Trucking, Inc. (“Defendant”) following a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to respond to deposition questions. Per Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, if a deponent fails to answer any question at deposition, the party that noticed the deposition may move to compel the deponent to answer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) However, after Defendant filed this motion, Plaintiff agreed to appear for a second session of deposition. The motion is moot except as to sanctions, which were properly noticed.

During the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel instructed his client not to respond to numerous questions that do not even arguably fall within any privilege. This was improper. Counsel should not instruct a deponent not to answer any question unless the question implicates a privilege. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1014.) Accordingly, sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel are warranted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (j).) The Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, Minh T. Nguyen, in the amount of $1,230, which represents six hours of attorney time at $195 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60.

Defendant also asks the Court to order Plaintiff to bear the costs of the court reporter and videographer for the second session of Plaintiff’s deposition. Defendant cites no authority for this request except as discovery sanctions. The Court cannot impose discovery sanctions unless it concludes that the sanctions represent the reasonable expenses associated with sanctionable conduct. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) As there is no evidence before the Court on the cost of the court reporter or videographer, the Court cannot determine whether the requested amounts are reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, Defendant’s request that Plaintiff pay the costs of the court reporter and videographer is denied as unsupported.