Case Number: BC712204 Hearing Date: May 01, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

MARY BOKTAR-GRISAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUNLAND PALOS VERDES MONTESSORI, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC712204

Hearing Date: May 1, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Defendant’s motion for order compelling PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

BACKGROUND

Defendant Sunland Palos Verdes Montessori, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff Mary Boktar-Grisand (“Plaintiff”) and requests sanctions in the amount of $2,216.98. Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration, but Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).) A motion to compel the deposition of a party to the action must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent failed to attend the deposition, a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(2).)

DISCUSSION

On August 3, 2018, Defendant served a deposition notice for November 1, 2018. The deposition was continued multiple times at Plaintiff counsel’s request. Eventually, on January 22, 2019, Defendant served the most recent notice of continuance of the deposition to March 7, 2019. Plaintiff did not appear for her noticed deposition on that date. There was no formal objection to the deposition.

Defendant has the right to take Plaintiff’s deposition and is entitled to take Plaintiff’s deposition without leave of court at any time after it was served or appeared in the action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.210(a).) As Plaintiff has not served a valid objection and has improperly failed to appear for or proceed with her deposition, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to attend and testify at her deposition.

Defendant requests that the Court impose sanctions on Plaintiff and her counsel of record, Raymond Ghermezian. The Court finds that the failure to appear at the deposition constitutes an abuse of the discovery process warranting sanctions. The Court orders sanctions against Plaintiff, but not Plaintiff’s counsel, because it finds that responsibility for this issue lies exclusively with Plaintiff. The Court orders Plaintiff to pay $860 in sanctions based upon four hours of attorney time at a reasonable billing rate of $200 per hour plus a filing fee of $60, as well as the court reporter cancellation fee of $356.98.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition at a location and date within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $1,216.98 in sanctions to Defendant within twenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: May 1, 2019 ___________________________

Stephen Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court