Case Number: BC527135    Hearing Date: September 16, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

CLAUDIA GONZALEZ, et al., )
) Case Number BC527135
Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
ANDREW GARRETT MERCY, ) September 16, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
)
___________________________________)

Defendant’s motion to compel production of documents, motion to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, and motion to compel attendance at deposition came on for hearing on September 16, 2014. Plaintiffs appeared through their counsel of record, ______________________. Defendant Andrew Garrett Mercy appeared through his counsel of record, ______________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The motion to compel production of documents and responses to form and special interrogatories are MOOT. The motion to compel attendance at depositions is GRANTED, Claudia Gonzalez and Graciela de Gonzalez are ordered to attend depositions at Plaintiff’s Counsels office on September 29, 2014 at 10:00 am with the depositions to continue from day to day until completed. The Court reserves jurisdiction over Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions pending further Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of September, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

CLAUDIA GONZALEZ, et al., )
) Case Number BC527135
Plaintiffs, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
ANDREW GARRETT MERCY, ) September 16, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
)
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case arises from a vehicular collision on November 19, 2011 between Plaintiff Claudia Gonzalez and Defendant Andrew Garrett Mercy (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs Claudia Gonzalez, Graciela de Gonzalez, and the Estate of Gonzalo Gonzalez Dominguez (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit on November 8, 2013 alleging wrongful death and negligence. Discovery commenced.

2. On January 16, 2014, Defendant served on Plaintiffs Form and Special Interrogatories (set one), Requests for Production of Documents (set one), and a notice of deposition set for March 18, 2014 for Claudia Gonzalez and March 24, 2014 for Graciela de Gonzalez. Due to logistical difficulties, Plaintiffs requested and were granted an extension till May 27, 2014, further extended to June 23, 2014.

3. In February of 2014, Plaintiff Claudia Gonzalez gave birth to a child and apparently required 3 months to recuperate due to complications of the surgery. In addition, Plaintiffs suffered a further death in the family at around the same time.

4. Defendant filed the present motions on August 4, 2014, seeking Court intervention to compel responses to the discovery as well as the imposition of monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs filed their belated and untimely Opposition on September 11, 2014, contesting only the issue of monetary sanctions.

5. Motion to Compel – Code of Civil Procedure §2031.300 provides that if a party, in response to a document production request, fails to timely serve a response, “the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” CCP §2031.300(b). See CCP §2030.290(b) for interrogatories. The Court must impose a monetary sanction against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response unless the party acted with substantial justification or the circumstances make the imposition unjust. CCP §2031.300(c); §2030.290(c).

6. In their Opposition, Plaintiffs note that they have served responses to the discovery as of the date of hearing. As such, Defendant’s motions to compel responses to form and special interrogatories, and for production of documents are MOOT.

7. “Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.” CCP §2025.010. Defendants properly noticed the deposition, and rescheduled the depositions in question several times to accommodate Plaintiffs’ circumstances. There is no dispute that Plaintiffs have still not had their depositions taken, despite the roughly half-year delay since the original deposition date. While Plaintiffs’ situation does call for some degree of sympathy, Defendant cannot be expected to wait to take their deposition indefinitely.

8. Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to compel the depositions of Claudia Gonzalez and Graciela de Gonzalez is GRANTED. Both are ordered to attend a deposition on September 29, 2014 at 10:00 am at Defendant’s counsel’s office, with the depositions to continue from day to day until completed.

9. Sanctions – As noted above, a party who unsuccessfully brings or opposes a motion to compel is subject to monetary sanction unless the Court finds substantial justification in their action.

10. Through the Declaration of John E. Nordblom, Plaintiffs have demonstrated substantial justification in their delay in responding to discovery due to the complications in child birth and logistics.

11. Accordingly, the Court reserves jurisdiction over Defendant’s request for sanctions pending further Order of the Court.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of September, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE