Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles court records plaintiff is represented by attorney Raymond Ghermezian who is being sanctioned by the court.

Case Number: BC674198 Hearing Date: May 10, 2018 Dept: 7

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

On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff Laura Raymundo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company dba Food 4 Less (“Defendant”) for negligence and premises liability relating to a July 3, 2017 slip and fall.

Plaintiff propounded requests for production of documents, including footage of Plaintiff’s fall. (Declaration of David Lopez, ¶ 4.) Although Defendant timely responded, Plaintiff did not receive the footage. (Declaration of Jennifer W. Naples, ¶ 4.) Defendant noticed and rescheduled Plaintiff’s deposition five times. (Declaration of Jennifer W. Naples, ¶ 5.) On March 21, 2018, defense counsel called to confirm Plaintiff’s March 22, 2018 deposition. The parties reached an agreement that defense counsel would produce the footage before Plaintiff’s deposition. Defense counsel also provided a twenty-second clip of Plaintiff’s fall, which was sent to Plaintiff’s counsel. (Naples Decl., ¶ 6.) Prior to Plaintiff’s deposition, Defense counsel refused to allow Plaintiff’s counsel to view the footage on any of Defense counsel’s computers. (Naples Decl., ¶ 7; Declaration of Sayeh Khoei, ¶¶ 4, 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel believed defense counsel had reneged on their agreement by refusing to permit Plaintiff and counsel to view the videotape at defense counsel’s office prior to the deposition. (Khoei Decl., ¶ 7.) Defense counsel also allegedly refused Plaintiff’s counsel the use of a telephone, when Plaintiff’s counsel could not get cellphone reception. Based on this conduct, Plaintiff’s counsel cancelled Plaintiff’s deposition. (Naples Decl., ¶ 7; Khoei Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff’s counsel also seeks monetary sanctions based on defense counsel’s failure to honor their agreement.

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).)

Proper service of a notice of taking deposition is sufficient to require a party to appear for examination. Plaintiff’s counsel improperly cancelled Plaintiff’s properly-noticed deposition. Accordingly, the Motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her deposition within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order, or other date to which the parties 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).) 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(2).)

The Court advises both parties’ attorneys to review the “Guidelines for Civility in Litigation,” which apply to all persons who practice before the Los Angeles Superior Court. In particular, the parties should review the guidelines regarding communications with adversaries and appropriate conduct during depositions: “Counsel should not engage in any conduct during a deposition that would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial officer.” (Los Angeles County Court Rules, Appendix 3.A, (d)(1), (e)(11).)

However, as Plaintiff’s counsel did not have appropriate grounds for unilaterally cancelling Plaintiff’s deposition, monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff’s counsel only, in the amount of $715.00 for $310.00 in court reporter fees, $345.00 in interpreter fees, and $60.00 filing fee. This monetary sanction is to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.

Moving party to give notice.