Lawzilla Additional Information: Plaintiff’s are represented by attorney Michael Waskul

Case Number: BC710026 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

DESMOND BEATTY, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

RAFAEL VALENZUELA MENJIVAR, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC710026

[TENTATIVE] ORDER

· GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

· GRANTING MOTIONS TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

· IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

October 30, 2019

1. Deposition

Defendant, Rafael Valenzuela Menjivar noticed Plaintiff, Candace Winborn’s deposition for 9/05/19. Plaintiff and her attorney failed to appear. Defendant attempted to meet and confer, but Plaintiffs’ attorney has lost contact with Winborn and has not provided any alternative dates for deposition. At this time, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to attend her deposition and produce documents thereat; Defendant also seeks imposition of 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. Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition, but did not appear. Of note, any opposition to the motion was due on or before 10/17/19. The Court has not received opposition to the motion. Defense Counsel may set the deposition on Defense Counsel’s terms with ten days’ notice to Plaintiff (extended per Code if service is by other than personal service).

The Court notes that the notice of deposition includes a demand for production of documents, and Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiff to produce all identified documents at her deposition. The moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). There is no discussion of good cause. 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 production of documents without court intervention.

2. Responses to Discovery

Defendant propounded form interrogatories on Plaintiffs, Harold Crespin, Marlene Moore, and Desmond Beatty on 10/19/18. To date, despite multiple attempts to meet and confer and extensions of time to respond, Plaintiffs have not served responses. Defendant therefore seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to respond, without objections, to the outstanding discovery and to pay sanctions.

Defendant’s motions are granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve verified responses to form interrogatories, without objections, within ten days. CCP §§2030.290(a),(b).

3. Sanctions

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiffs in the total amount of $1068.50/motion. Sanctions are mandatory. §§2025.450(c), 2030.290(c). The Court awards the requested one hour of attorney time per motion to draft these motions to compel. No opposition was filed and therefore not reply was necessary. The Court awards the requested two hours of time to appear, but only awards the time once. The Court awards a total of six attorney hours of attorney time at the requested and reasonable billing rate of $250/hour. The Court therefore awards a total of $1500 in attorneys’ fees. The Court also awards the requested filing fees of $68.50 each, or $274 in costs.

Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs and their attorney of record, jointly and severally; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1774, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.