Case Number: BC567451 Hearing Date: April 03, 2018 Dept: 92

SUSANA VICTORIA, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

SUSAN C. MOGOLLON, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC567451

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITIONS

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

April 3, 2018

Defendant has twice noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions. Each time, Defense Counsel, Plaintiffs’ attorney, a court reporter, and an interpreter have appeared. Plaintiffs, however, failed to appear at either deposition. At this time, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs to appear for their depositions on a date certain.

CCP §2025.450(b)(2) provides, “(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.”

This information is technically missing from Defense Counsel’s declaration in support of the motion. Counsel does, however, declare that Plaintiffs’ attorney appeared at the two noticed depositions, and that the attorneys waited together for Plaintiffs to appear at each deposition. The Court is inclined, under the circumstances, to find Plaintiffs’ attorney’s presence at the depositions sufficient to comply with the meet and confer requirement; the Court especially notes Plaintiffs’ lack of opposition to the motion in this regard.

The motion to compel is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to sit for their depositions. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to choose a mutually agreeable date and time for the depositions to go forward. If Counsel are unable to agree to a date and time within five days, Defendant may unilaterally set Plaintiffs’ depositions with at least five days’ notice (notice period extended per CCP 1005 if notice other than by personal service).

The Court notes that the notices of deposition include a demand for production of documents. The moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by §2025.450(b)(1). The Court therefore declines to enter an order compelling Plaintiffs to produce documents, but urges the parties to work together to resolve any issues concerning documents without court intervention.

The Court notes that Defendant does not seek sanctions in connection with the motion, and none are imposed.