Case Number: EC067596 Hearing Date: June 08, 2018 Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

Calendar: 2

Date: 6/8/18

Case No: EC 067596 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Thai, et al v. Quality Loan Service Corporation, et al.

MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS (2)

(CCP § 2025.450(a); 2023.010 et seq.)

Moving Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff Quang Thai

Plaintiff Vince Chai (No Opposition)

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Motion of Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to Compel Plaintiff Quang Thai to Appear and Testify at Deposition and to Produce Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff Quang Thai is ordered to appear for deposition and to give testimony on June 22, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of counsel for defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Plaintiff Quang Thai is also ordered to bring with him for production all documents responsive to the Notice of Deposition served on December 19, 2017.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $675.00[$675 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Quang Thai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2025.450(c), 2023.010(d) and 2023.030(a).

Motion of Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC to Compel Plaintiff Vince Chai to Appear and Testify at Deposition and to Produce Documents is GRANTED. Plaintiff Vince Chai is ordered to appear for deposition and to give testimony on June 29, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the law offices of counsel for defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Plaintiff Vince Chai is also ordered to bring with him for production all documents responsive to the Notice of Deposition served on December 19, 2017.

Monetary sanctions in the amount of $675.00 [$675 requested] are awarded against plaintiff Vince Chai, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2025.450(c), 2023.010(d) and 2023.030(a).

Name of Deponent: Quang Thai, Vince Chai

Status of Deponent: Plaintiffs (parties)

DEPO ATTENDANCE REQUIRED BY:

Formal Notice [Exhibits A]

RELIEF REQUESTED BY MOVING PARTY:

Order compelling each plaintiff to appear and testify at deposition and produce documents as specified in deposition notice

DECLARATION SUPPORTING MOTION:

Executed per CCP §§ 2015.5; CRC 315(a): Ok

Reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally: Decl., paras. 7-9, Ex. C.

CHRONOLOGY

Date NOTICE OF DEPOSITION served (CCP § 2031(b)): December 19, 2017

Date of Deposition (10 day lapse): February 7, 8, 2018 ok

Date Motion Served: March 15, 2018

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Quang Thai and Vince Chai, in pro per, allege that they are the rightful owners of real property in San Gabriel, upon which defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation, Nationstar Mortgage LLC, MERS, and Bank of America, N.A., wrongfully foreclosed, purporting to sell the property to defendant U.S. Bank, National Association, and that the lender and servicer defendants violated the Homeowners Bill of Rights.

ANALYSIS:

CCP section 2025.450 (a) provides that “if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action… without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice… the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

In this case, defendant Nationstar served notices, and plaintiffs failed to timely serve objection, and failed to appear for examination or produce the documents requested. [Im Decl., paras. 2-6]. The motion accordingly is granted.

The motion also seeks that the deponents be ordered to bring with them to the deposition the documents requested in the deposition notices.

Under CCP section 2025.450(b), a motion to compel appearance at deposition and production of documents, “shall comply with both of the following:”

“(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

The motions here argue that good cause exists for production, as the requests are made in good faith and the documents sought are relevant and essential. The requests include documents identified by plaintiff in written discovery, documents related the plaintiffs’ interest, ownership and rights in the subject property and mortgage, documents reflecting communications with defendants, any agreements between plaintiffs and defendants and related to prior involvement in other judicial and administrative proceedings. The bulk of the requests seek documents supporting the various contentions made by plaintiffs in this action. This appears sufficient to establish good cause, and the orders here also require that the deponents to bring to the depositions the requested documents.

Sanctions

Moving party seeks monetary sanctions.

Under CCP section 2025.450 (g)(1) “if a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party and against the deponent…unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Section 2023.010 (d) provides that misuse of the discovery process includes failure to submit to an authorized method of discovery. CCP section 2023.030(a) authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions against a party and its attorney for misuse of the discovery processes.

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429.

Under CRC Rule 3.1030(a):

“The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The motions are granted, and plaintiffs have failed to oppose them, so plaintiffs have failed to show substantial justification or injustice here. Plaintiffs’ conduct has necessitated the preparation of the motion to obtain a court order concerning the deposition, and the costs are shifted to plaintiffs.

The sanctions sought are $675 for each of the two motions. The two hours to attend the hearing has been divided between the motions to account for them being heard together. The sanctions appear reasonable and are awarded as requested.