Re: Tina Jackson v. State of California EDD
Superior Court No. 16CECG01569
Hearing Date: Wednesday February 28, 2018 (Dept. 402)
Motion: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition
Tentative Ruling:

To Grant Defendants’ Motion to Compel.

To Impose Sanction in the amount of $4,760. Sanctions must be paid to the Attorney General of California within 30 days after service of this order.

Explanation:

A party is entitled to discovery regarding any matter not privileged that is relevant to the pending action, if the matter either is itself admissible or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §

2017.010; Emerson Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 1101, 1108; Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1276– 1277.) Particularly, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides for a motion to compel where the responding party fails to comply with proper discovery requests for deposition.

Here, Defendants rightfully seek to depose Plaintiff. Her testimony is relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because as the complaining party, she is essential. Notice was also adequate. On October 24, 2017 the parties stipulated in open court to have Plaintiff’s deposition occur in Fresno from December 19-21, 2017. (Austin Dec., filed: 1/25/18 ¶¶ 20, 21, Ex. I.) On October 27, 2017, an official deposition notice was also served. (Austin Dec., filed: 1/25/17 ¶22, Ex. J.) And on December 15, 2017, Defendants even sent Plaintiff a confirming email, which she does not deny receiving. (Id. at ¶23, Ex. K; Amended Opposition, filed: 2/9/18 p7 lns 16-17, Ex. 11.)

Plaintiff submits opposition, but it is unavailing. First it is technically non-conforming. Plaintiff submits her opposition without the required proof of service. (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd. (c).) And Plaintiff’s points and authorities are not formatted correctly; the font is very small, and it is not spaced correctly. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.104, 2.108.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff’s opposition lacks merit. Plaintiff opposes on the ground that she was not served with a notice of deposition. But notice was not required because the parties stipulated and it is undisputed that she knew the exact location prior to December 19, 2017.

5

Sanctions

If a party deponent fails to appear at her deposition, monetary sanctions must be imposed unless The Court finds that the party acted “with substantial justification” or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Here, because Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to appear for her deposition, sanctions are warranted. Defense Counsel requests $ 7,338.41 in sanctions. (Austin Dec., filed: 1/25/18 pp7-8.) Counsel seeks sanctions for all expenses related to Plaintiff’s failure to appear as well as for her time directly spent working on this motion. However, Courts are only authorized to award as sanctions for moving party’s “reasonable expenses.” These include the time moving party’s counsel spent in research and preparation of the motion and court time in connection with the motion. (Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.) Sanctions are therefore imposed in the reduced amount of $4,760.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling
Issued by: JYH on 02/27/18
(Judge’s initials) (Date)