Case Number: 16K15942 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: 94

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Mary Der-Parseghian (“Der-Parseghian”) to Attend and Give Testimony at a Deposition is granted. Der-Parseghian is ordered to appear for her deposition at a date, time and place to be decided by the Court at the time of the hearing. The Court declines to award sanctions.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Witness Nanor Babian (“Babian”) to Attend and Give Testimony at a Deposition is granted. Babian is ordered to appear for her deposition at a date, time and place to be decided by the Court at the time of the hearing. The Court declines to award sanctions.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Witness Angela Ayvazyan (“Ayvazyan”) to Attend and Give Testimony at a Deposition is granted. Ayvazyan is ordered to appear for her deposition at a date, time and place to be decided by the Court at the time of the hearing. The Court declines to award sanctions.

Legal Standard

CCP section 2025.450(a) states in relevant part:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).) A motion to compel deposition 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 stores information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (See id., § 2025.450(b)(2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted, unless the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (See id., § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Discussion

Motion to Compel Deposition re: Mary Der-Parseghian

Plaintiff served Der-Parseghian with a notice of deposition set for December 12, 2017. (Motion, Moghaddami Decl., ¶2 and Exh. B). Der-Parseghian objected to the notice, on the basis that Plaintiff’s counsel had not met and conferred regarding the date. (Id. at ¶3). Plaintiff served a “First Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Der-Parseghian’s deposition for January 30, 2018. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C). Der-Parseghian’s deposition was rescheduled to March 8, 2018 per a “Second Continued Notice of Deposition” after Der-Parseghian’s previous counsel, Garabed Kamarian (“Kamarian”), contacted Plaintiff’s counsel’s office and advised that he would be unable to attend the January 30, 2018 deposition for medical reasons. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. D). On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from attorney John Petersen (“Petersen”), wherein he advised that he was substituting into the case as defendants’ counsel and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact his office to reschedule the March 8, 2018 deposition. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. E).

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel’s paralegal, Roubina Bouladian (“Bouladian”), confirmed with Petersen’s assistant Lorena that Der-Parseghian’s deposition had been re-set. (Id. at ¶7 and Exh. F). That day, Plaintiff served a “Third Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Der-Parseghian’s deposition for March 27, 2018. (Id. and Exh. G). On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from Petersen, wherein he advised that he could not “meet [the] deposition schedule” because he was recovering from surgery and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact Lorena at his office for new dates. (Id. at ¶8 and Exh. H). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Lorena, during which time Lorena confirmed Der-Parseghian’s deposition for March 27, 2018. (Id. at ¶9). Based on Lorena’s statement, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Petersen confirming the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 10 and Exh. I). Although Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his conversation with Lorena occurred on March 23, 2018, his confirming letter is actually dated March 22, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any further communication from Petersen or his office. (Id. at ¶ 11). Der-Parseghian failed to appear on March 27, 2018, and a “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. (Id. at ¶ 12 and Exh. J).

It does not appear that Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Petersen after the March 27, 2018 “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel was given notice by Petersen on March 22, 2018 that the deposition could not proceed on March 27, 2018. It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s conversation with Lorena transpired on March 22, 2018 or March 23, 2018; again, although he indicates it occurred on March 23, 2018, the letter he attests was sent to Petersen’s office after he spoke with Lorena is dated March 22, 2018. The fax confirmation sheet, moreover, reflects a sent date and time of “03/22/2018 10:05.” It is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel would have proceeded to contact Peterson’s office on March 23, 2018 to request confirmation of Der-Parseghian’s deposition on March 27, 2018 after conceding receipt of Petersen’s March 22, 2018 letter. For these reasons, sanctions are not imposed. At this juncture, however, due to the multiple reschedulings of Der-Parseghian’s deposition, the Court determines that an order is needed to compel Der-Parseghian’s attendance at her deposition.

Motion to Compel Deposition re: Nanor Babian

Plaintiff served Babian with a notice of deposition set for December 11, 2017. (Motion, Moghaddami Decl., ¶2 and Exh. B). Babian objected to the notice, on the basis that Plaintiff’s counsel had not met and conferred regarding the date. (Id. at ¶3). Plaintiff served a “First Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Babian’s deposition for January 29, 2018. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C). Babian’s deposition was rescheduled to March 7, 2018 per a “Second Continued Notice of Deposition” after Der-Parseghian’s previous counsel, Kamarian, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel’s office and advised that he would be unable to attend the January 30, 2018 deposition for medical reasons. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. D). On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from Petersen, wherein he advised that he was substituting into the case as defendants’ counsel and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact his office to reschedule the March 7, 2018 deposition. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. E).

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel’s paralegal Bouladian confirmed with Petersen’s assistant Lorena that Babian’s deposition had been re-set. (Id. at ¶7 and Exh. F). That day, Plaintiff served a “Third Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Babian’s deposition for March 26, 2018. (Id. and Exh. G). On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from Petersen, wherein he advised that he could not “meet [the] deposition schedule” because he was recovering from surgery and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact Lorena at his office for new dates. (Id. at ¶8 and Exh. H). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Lorena, during which time Lorena confirmed Babian’s deposition for March 26, 2018. (Id. at ¶9). Based on Lorena’s statement, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Petersen confirming the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 10 and Exh. I). Again, although Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his conversation with Lorena occurred on March 23, 2018, his confirming letter is actually dated March 22, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any further communication from Petersen or his office. (Id. at ¶ 11). Babian failed to appear on March 26, 2018, and a “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. (Id. at ¶ 12 and Exh. J).

It does not appear that Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Petersen after the March 26, 2018 “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel was given notice by Petersen on March 22, 2018 that the deposition could not proceed on March 26, 2018. It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s conversation with Lorena transpired on March 22, 2018 or March 23, 2018; again, although he indicates it occurred on March 23, 2018, the letter he attests was sent to Petersen’s office after he spoke with Lorena is dated March 22, 2018. The fax confirmation sheet, moreover, reflects a sent date and time of “03/22/2018 10:05.” It is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel would have proceeded to contact Peterson’s office on March 23, 2018 to request confirmation of Babian’s deposition on March 26, 2018 after conceding receipt of Petersen’s March 22, 2018 letter. For these reasons, sanctions are not imposed. At this juncture, however, due to the multiple reschedulings of Babian’s deposition, the Court determines that an order is needed to compel Babian’s attendance at her deposition.

Motion to Compel Deposition re: Angela Ayvazyan

Plaintiff served Ayvazyan with a notice of deposition set for December 11, 2017. (Motion, Moghaddami Decl., ¶2 and Exh. B). Ayvazyan objected to the notice, on the basis that Plaintiff’s counsel had not met and conferred regarding the date. (Id. at ¶3). Plaintiff served a “First Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Ayvazyan’s deposition for January 29, 2018. (Id. at ¶4 and Exh. C). Ayvazyan’s deposition was rescheduled to March 7, 2018 per a “Second Continued Notice of Deposition” after Der-Parseghian’s previous counsel, Kamarian, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel’s office and advised that he would be unable to attend the January 30, 2018 deposition for medical reasons. (Id. at ¶5 and Exh. D). On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from Petersen, wherein he advised that he was substituting into the case as defendants’ counsel and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact his office to reschedule the March 7, 2018 deposition. (Id. at ¶6 and Exh. E).

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel’s paralegal Bouladian confirmed with Petersen’s assistant Lorena that Ayvazyan’s deposition had been re-set. (Id. at ¶7 and Exh. F). That day, Plaintiff served a “Third Continued Notice of Deposition” setting Ayvazyan’s deposition for March 26, 2018. (Id. and Exh. G). On March 22, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from Petersen, wherein he advised that he could not “meet [the] deposition schedule” because he was recovering from surgery and requested that Plaintiff’s counsel contact Lorena at his office for new dates. (Id. at ¶8 and Exh. H). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Lorena, during which time Lorena confirmed Ayvazyan’s deposition for March 26, 2018. (Id. at ¶9). Based on Lorena’s statement, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Petersen confirming the deposition. (Id. at ¶ 10 and Exh. I). Again, although Plaintiff’s counsel attests that his conversation with Lorena occurred on March 23, 2018, his confirming letter is actually dated March 22, 2018. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive any further communication from Petersen or his office. (Id. at ¶ 11). Ayvazyan failed to appear on March 26, 2018, and a “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. (Id. at ¶ 12 and Exh. J).

It does not appear that Plaintiff’s counsel contacted Petersen after the March 26, 2018 “Certificate of Non-Appearance” was taken. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel was given notice by Petersen on March 22, 2018 that the deposition could not proceed on March 26, 2018. It is unclear whether Plaintiff’s counsel’s conversation with Lorena transpired on March 22, 2018 or March 23, 2018; again, although he indicates it occurred on March 23, 2018, the letter he attests was sent to Petersen’s office after he spoke with Lorena is dated March 22, 2018. The fax confirmation sheet, moreover, reflects a sent date and time of “03/22/2018 10:05.” It is unclear why Plaintiff’s counsel would have proceeded to contact Peterson’s office on March 23, 2018 to request confirmation of Ayvzayan’s deposition on March 26, 2018 after conceding receipt of Petersen’s March 22, 2018 letter. For these reasons, sanctions are not imposed. At this juncture, however, due to the multiple reschedulings of Ayvayzan’s deposition, the Court determines that an order is needed to compel Ayvazyan’s attendance at her deposition.

Moving party to give notice.