Case Number: BC665080 Hearing Date: October 30, 2019 Dept: 4B

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF PLAINTIFFS AMY CRUZ AND HEATHER REYES; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs Heather Reyes, Amy Cruz, and Edward Karpinski filed this action against defendants Jennifer Goodnight, Beverly Goodnight, Kwang Lee, Richard Cordin, Corbin Lee, and David Poole for injuries and damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. Defendant Beverly Goodnight (“Defendant”) moves to compel the depositions of plaintiffs Heather Reyes (“Reyes”) and Amy Cruz (“Cruz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) to take place on November 13, 14, or 18, 2019. Co-defendant Corbin Lee joins in both these motions. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motions.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . 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 notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

On October 30, 2018, Defendant noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for February 19, 2019. On January 9, 2019, Plaintiffs served objections stating counsel was unavailable and objected to the phrase that the deposition would continue from day to day unless mutually agreed to or an alternative date and time are agreed to. The objection further stated that counsel would provide alternative dates for the deposition. On August 16, 2019, defense counsel requested dates of availability from Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs did not provide dates. On August 22, 2019, defense counsel once again requested dates by the close of business and threatened to file a motion. Plaintiffs did not provide dates.

Co-defendant Corbin Lee (“Lee”) noticed Cruz and Reyes’s depositions for September 13, 2019, but Plaintiffs served the same objections to the notices claiming unavailability. Lee requested available dates on September 3, 2019. Plaintiffs did not provide dates, so the Lee schedule the depositions for September 25, 2019. Plaintiffs served the same objection on September 20, 2019 citing counsel’s unavailability. On September 24, 2019, defense counsel informed Plaintiff that the depositions would proceed and that non-appearances would be taken. Plaintiffs and their counsel did not appear.

Defendants are entitled to take Plaintiffs’ depositions. The Court GRANTS the motions. Plaintiffs are to appear for their depositions on November 13, 14, or 18, or within the next 30 days as agreed to by the parties.

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) On motion of a party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party and against the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

The Court GRANTS the request for sanctions. Sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are imposed against Reyes and counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order. Sanctions in the amount of $360.00 are imposed against Cruz and counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid within 20 days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.