Case Number: 18STCV00658 Hearing Date: March 02, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion to Compel Further Answers of Defendant Steve A. Soto’s Deposition

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Faraz Ahmad and Abdus Khan (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendants Steven A. Soto (“Soto”) and Esteban Estrella Bolivar (“Bolivar”). The complaint alleges negligence arising out of a vehicle accident that occurred on May 3, 2018.

On October 23, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel further answers of Defendant Soto’s deposition pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480.

An Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) was initially scheduled for March 6, 2020 (CRS #266763360303). On January 6, 2020, Plaintiff Faraz Ahmad rescheduled the IDC to February 24, 2020. Subsequently, on February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Faraz Ahmad took the IDC off calendar. As of the date of the instant motion, no IDC has been scheduled.

On February 21, 2020, Plaintiff Faraz Ahmad was dismissed with prejudice from the complaint.

Trial is set for April 7, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendant Steven A. Soto to provide further testimony to questions asked during his August 19, 2019 deposition.

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to impose $6,540 in monetary sanctions against Defendant Soto for their abuse of the discovery process.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a) states: “If a deponent fails to answer any question . . . the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer. . . .” “Parties must participate in an [Informal Discovery Conference] before a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery will be heard unless the moving party submits evidence, by way of declaration, that the opposing party has failed or refused to participate in an [Informal Discovery Conference.] (LA Superior Court Standing Order; April 16, 2018, ¶ 5 (emphasis in original).) A motion to compel further is the appropriate motion when the responding party provides a response to the propounded discovery. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788.)

DISCUSSION

On August 19, 2019, Plaintiffs took the deposition of Defendant Soto. (Exh. B.) Plaintiffs asked a number of questions that Defendant Soto did not answer after his counsel instructed him not to answer. (Habbas Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) The proper motion to obtain further answers is a motion to compel further. However, the procedural threshold of participating in an Informal Discovery Conference has not been met. Further, Plaintiffs did not submit evidence, by way of declaration, that Defendant Soto has failed or refused to participate in an IDC. Thus, the Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue the hearing on this motion for the parties to participate in an Informal Discovery Conference.

Plaintiffs and Defendant Soto are ordered to appear on March 2, 2020 in Department 28 in Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 to meet and confer regarding the instant motion. If the parties cannot reach an agreement, the court will schedule an IDC and will continue this motion until after the IDC.