Case Number: BC722003 Hearing Date: October 28, 2019 Dept: 4B

TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION

On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff Justin Brown filed this action against Defendant Kendra Evans for motor vehicle negligence stemming from a June 27, 2017 collision between the parties. On April 19, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition setting a deposition for May 21, 2019. On May 20, 2019, Defendant’s attorney’s office emailed Plaintiff’s counsel’s asking to reschedule to July 15, 2019. Plaintiff then served Defendant with a notice of continued deposition, set for July 15, 2019. Defendant moved for a protective order and was denied. On August 23, 2019, defense counsel stated that dates of availability would be forthcoming, but did not provide dates. Plaintiff’s counsel followed up with two emails asking for date, but received no response. Plaintiff now moves for an order compelling Defendant’s deposition.

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).) “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).)

Plaintiff served Defendant two notices of deposition, and Defendant’s attempt to secure a protective order failed. Defendants sates the attorney handling the scheduling left the firm and defense counsel did not realize no dates had been provided. Defendant asks for sixty days to provide dates,

Defendant has had more than enough time to provide deposition dates. The deposition was noticed in April. Six months is long enough to schedule a deposition. Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and Defendant is ordered to appear for deposition within the next 30 days or on some other date mutually agreed to by the parties. The deposition shall be subject to the accommodations described in the August 26, 2019 minute order.

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).)

Defendant argues sanctions are unwarranted because the attorney handling the matter left the firm and counsel did not realize that deposition dates had not been provided. But Defendant should have provided dates immediately following the August 26, 2019 denial of the motion for a protective order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED and imposed against Defendant and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,185, to be paid with twenty days of the date of this order.

Moving party to give notice.