Case Number: BC519180    Hearing Date: September 09, 2014    Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

OLIVIA SARINANA, a minor, by and through her guardian ad litem, MARISOL LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

YUNCHUL PAK, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No.: BC 519180

Hearing Date: September 9, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT GLENN LEDESMA, M.D.

Plaintiff Olivia Sarinana’s (“Sarinana”) motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Glenn Ledesma, M.D. (“Ledesma”) is denied, as discussed below.
On January 6, 2014, Sarinana served Ledesma with a notice of deposition, setting the deposition for January 27, 2014. On January 8, 2014, Ledesma’s counsel informed Sarinana’s counsel in writing that he was not available on that date. After unsuccessful efforts to obtain a new date for Ledesma’s deposition, Sarinana scheduled an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”) with the Court. On April 1, 2014, the Court held an IDC, the result of which was a Stipulation and Order that Ledesma’s deposition would take place within 45 days. To the extent Sarinana contends that Ledesma failed to comply with the January 27, 2014 Notice of Deposition, that issue was resolved at the IDC.

Thereafter, apparently in an effort to comply with the Stipulation and Order, Ledesma twice agreed to mutually acceptable deposition dates (albeit on dates outside the 45 days ordered) that were then cancelled by Sarinana: May 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.
It appears that Sarinana’s attorney made attempts to obtain new deposition dates from Ledesma, without success, before filing this motion. However, CCP §2025.450 does not provide the Court with power to compel a party to attend a deposition based upon such facts. The code requires that a party fail to comply with a noticed deposition before he or she may be ordered to appear for deposition. Based upon the record currently before the Court, it does not appear that Ledesma has failed to appear for a noticed deposition and on that basis, the motion is denied. Moreover, it appears that Ledesma complied with the stipulation and order by twice agreeing to mutually acceptable deposition dates and that remarkably, those dates were then cancelled by the moving party. On the other hand, it does appear that a new date was provided by Ledesma only because of the filing of this motion.
The Court declines to award sanctions to either party under these circumstances.
The Court also notes as follows: It appears that Plaintiff is deceased but no representative has been appointed in this matter. This needs immediate attention.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.