Case Number: BC652807 Hearing Date: June 08, 2018 Dept: 7

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION AND MONETARY SANCTIONS; MOTION GRANTED

On March 8, 2017, Plaintiff Hue Huu Duong (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Randy Nobis (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle and general negligence relating to a March 12, 2015 automobile accident.

On November 13, 2017, Defendant served a Notice of Taking Deposition setting Plaintiff’s deposition for March 8, 2018. (Declaration of Larry P. Bilbrew, ¶ 3; Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s deposition was rescheduled four times to accommodate Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule, and Plaintiff’s need for an interpreter. (Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 4.) On the final continued deposition date of April 18, 2018, neither Plaintiff nor his attorney appeared and a certificate of non-appearance was taken. (Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 5.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter to reschedule Plaintiff’s deposition, but received no response. (Bilbrew Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and monetary sanctions.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code of 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).)

Plaintiff filed no opposition to this Motion and it is undisputed that Plaintiff failed to appear for his deposition. A properly-served deposition notice is sufficient to require a party to appear and testify at an oral deposition. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Therefore, the Motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within twenty (20) days, or other date to which the parties may agree.

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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Monetary sanctions may also be imposed in favor of a person, party, or attorney who appeared at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

The request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Plaintiff and his counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,117.50 for: $265.00 court reporter fee, $505.00 Vietnamese language interpreter fee, $60.00 filing fee, and $287.50 for two hours preparing this unopposed motion and attending the hearing at counsel’s rate of $143.75 per hour. This $1,117.50 monetary sanction is to be paid to defense counsel within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.