Case Number: BC635092 Hearing Date: May 03, 2018 Dept: 3

DAVID VARGAS,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

KIANA CHARLES, et al.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC635092

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AT DEPOSITION; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

May 3, 2018

Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on four occasions. Each time, Plaintiff has indicated an inability to appear and be deposed. Defendant most recently noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for 3/20/18; prior to the deposition, Plaintiff’s attorney called Defense Counsel because Plaintiff’s attorney had lost contact with Plaintiff. At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition, to compel production of documents at deposition, and seeks to recover sanctions.

The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a “valid” objection to the notice of deposition. Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on four occasions, and Plaintiff has not appeared. Plaintiff opposes the motion, but does not provide any authority contrary to §2025.450(a).

The Court notes that the opposition provides conflicting information about the state of the relationship between Plaintiff and his attorney. At page 3, lines 24-27, Plaintiff indicates no attempts at contact have been successful. However, at page 4, lines 3-5, Plaintiff indicates contact was successfully made on 4/19/18, and Plaintiff is ready and willing to be deposed at this time. Then, in conclusion, at page 6, line 16, Plaintiff again indicates there is no contact and Plaintiff cannot be located. In any event, lack of communication between an attorney and a client does not form an exception to the statutory rules governing motions to compel; regardless of the state of Plaintiff’s relationship with his attorney, his deposition is compelled at this time.

Defendant seeks an order compelling the deposition to go forward on 6/05/18 at 1:00 p.m. in Defense Counsel’s office. The motion is granted. The Court notes that trial is scheduled on 8/17/18.

The notice of deposition includes a demand for production of documents. The moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). The Court therefore declines to enter an order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents, but urges the parties to work together to resolve any issues concerning documents without court intervention.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record in the amount of $660. Sanctions are mandatory unless Plaintiff shows good cause or a reason imposition of sanctions would be unjust. §2025.450(c). Plaintiff argues sanctions should not be imposed because Plaintiff and his attorney lost contact, which fact was relayed to Defense Counsel, and the two only recently made contact. Plaintiff indicates a willingness to appear for deposition, and urges the Court not to impose sanctions. The Court finds Plaintiff’s attorney’s loss of contact with Plaintiff is sufficient to support denial of sanctions against Counsel personally. Plaintiff, however, had an obligation, at all times, to maintain contact with his lawyer and to assist in the prosecution of this case. There is, therefore, no good cause or substantial justification for refusing to impose sanctions on Plaintiff.

The Court notes that Plaintiff seeks sanctions in connection with his opposition. There is no support for the request, and it is denied.

The Court finds the amount of sanctions sought fully supported and reasonable. The request for sanctions is granted in full. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $660, within twenty days.