Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Hamed Yazdanpanah who is being sanctioned by the court. Update: Lawzilla believes this tentative order was affirmed as the final ruling of the court.

Case Number: BC589837 Hearing Date: April 24, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Mikiro Amemiya and Francis Yeo

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Francisco Armenta and Maria Zavala

(1) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Francisco Armenta

(2) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff Maria Zavala

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2015, plaintiffs Francisco Armenta and Maria Zavala filed a complaint against defendants Mikiro Amemiya and Francis Yeo for negligence based on a motor vehicle accident that occurred on August 13, 2013.

On June 22, 2017, the court granted defendants’ motions to compel plaintiffs’ responses to defendants’ discovery requests within seven days. At the hearing, defendants’ withdrew their request for sanctions.

DISCUSSION

Defendants request an order compelling plaintiffs to appear for their deposition.

CCP §2025.450(a) provides: “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”

CCP § 2025.450(b) provides, “A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

On November 14, 2017, defendants served deposition notices on plaintiffs, setting the depositions for December 14 and 15, 2017. The depositions did not proceed. On January 23, 2018, defendants served deposition notices, setting the depositions for February 7 and 8, 2018. On February 6, 2018, defense counsel sent an email to plaintiff’s counsel to confirm plaintiffs’ depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel responded that the depositions would not be going forward but did not provide any alternate dates.

Defendants contend that at 4:39 p.m., on February 6, defense counsel sent a response email to plaintiffs’ counsel stating that due to the number of times the scheduled depositions had been taken off calendar and the lack of provision of available dates, defendants intended to proceed with plaintiffs’ scheduled depositions. Plaintiff’s counsel responded that he was in the process of getting dates. Plaintiffs did not appear.

In opposition, plaintiffs contend that the only issue is one of scheduling and that defendants have failed to properly meet and confer as to available dates. Plaintiffs assert that plaintiffs’ counsel associated into this case on February 27, 2018 and that after the motions were filed, plaintiffs’ counsel attempted to reach out to defense counsel to meet and confer.

The court finds that defendants properly served deposition notices, plaintiffs failed to appear, and plaintiffs have not offered available dates. Thus, the motions are GRANTED.

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).

Under CCP § 2023.030(a), “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Under CCP § 2023.010, an example of the misuse of the discovery process is “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.”

Defendants request monetary sanctions against plaintiff Armenta and his counsel of record, Hamed Yazdanpanah, Esq., in the amount of $1,222 and against plaintiff Zavala and her counsel of record in the amount of $984. The court finds that $340 ($140/hr. x 2 hrs., $60 filing fee) is a reasonable amount in costs to be imposed against each plaintiff and attorney of record.

The court ORDERS that plaintiffs appear for their deposition at the law offices of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, located at One World Trade Center, 27th Floor, Long Beach, California 90831-2700, within 15 days.

Plaintiff Francisco Armenta and his attorney of record Hamed Yazdanpanah, Esq. are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendants in the amount of $340 within 30 days.

Plaintiff Maria Zavala and her attorney of record Hamed Yazdanpanah, Esq. are ordered to pay a monetary sanction to defendants in the amount of $340 within 30 days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 24, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court