Case Number: BC540136    Hearing Date: August 13, 2014    Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Calendar No: 9
Case Name: Korean American Presbyterian Church v. Korean American Presbyterian Church, et al.
Case No.: BC540136
Motion: Motion to Compel Deposition
Moving Party: Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church
Responding Party: No opposition filed
Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Motion to compel deposition is granted: Defendant Yong Ho Cho is ordered to appear for his deposition within 20 days. Sanctions are awarded in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Yong Ho Cho and Defendant’s counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the total reduced amount of $1,000 to be paid within 30 days.
________________________________________

Background –
On 3/21/14, Plaintiff Korean American Presbyterian Church, a Pennsylvania non-profit (“KAPC-PA”), filed this action against Defendant Korean American Presbyterian Church, a California non-profit (“KAPC-CA”), and Defendants Oon Young Lee, Nahm Eul Kim, Duck Yung Kang, Yong Ho Cho, Nam Ju Kook, Sun Il Lee, and Seung Ho Noh arising out of a dispute as to the governing body of the denomination of the Church and the use of the Church’s logo, name, acronym, and texts. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) injunctive relief, (2) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (3) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, (4) violation of the Lanham Act § 42, and (5) common law trademark infringement.

On 5/7/14, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against Defendants, effective upon Plaintiff’s filing of a $30,000 undertaking. On 5/9/14, Plaintiff filed notice of posting of a $30,000 bond. On 6/19/14, Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint. On 5/22/14, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Cho. On 8/4/14, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery responses and to deem requests for admissions admitted against Kook set for hearing on 10/16/14. CMC is set for 8/22/14.

Motion to Compel Deposition –
Plaintiff submits that the parties’ counsel agreed to a procedure for noticing depositions, whereby Plaintiff’s counsel would change deposition dates if Defendants’ counsel proposed reasonable dates in advance of the noticed date. Reynolds Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exs. A-B. On 4/25/14, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Cho for 5/9/14. Id. ¶ 4, Ex. C. Defendants’ counsel indicated they were unavailable for that date (id. ¶ 5): Plaintiff’s counsel provided other dates and requested proposed dates from Defendants’ counsel; however, no proposed dates were given despite Defendants’ counsel stating that they would be. See id. ¶¶ 7-8, 12-14, Exs. F, J-K. Plaintiff’s counsel took a nonappearance at Cho’s deposition. Id. ¶¶ 17-18, Exs. M-N. Plaintiff moves to compel Cho’s deposition pursuant to CCP § 2025.450. No opposition was filed. Therefore, the motion to compel deposition is granted.

Plaintiff requests sanctions of $2,000 pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(g)(1). Reynolds Decl. ¶ 17 (submitting 5 hours spent in meet and confer efforts, 4 hours preparing the motion, an expected 2 hours preparing a reply, and an expected 5 hours attending the hearing) . Although Plaintiff submits evidence of the $376.90 in the nonappearance court reporter costs (id. Ex. M), Plaintiff’s counsel fails to submit any evidence of his hourly rate. Additionally, this matter was relatively straightforward, and much of the evidence submitted by Plaintiff concerned the parties’ apparently successful attempts at rescheduling depositions of other parties. Therefore, the Court will award sanctions in the total reduced amount of $1,000.

Procedural Note –
The Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion includes several exhibits which are not separated b hard paper or plastic tabs and for which no index of exhibits was provided, in violation of CRC 3.1110(f). Although the Court will overlook this procedural deficiency on this motion, Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished to comply with all CRC rules in its filings.