Case Number: BC718428 Hearing Date: May 07, 2019 Dept: 5

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 5

WILLEAN WEBB,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAKE MEEKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC718428

Hearing Date: May 7, 2019

[Tentative] order RE:

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT JAKE MEEKS AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

On August 20, 2018, Plaintiff Willean Webb (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Jake Meeks (“Defendant Meeks”) and Outsource Utility Contractor Corp. (“Defendant Outsource”) following an automobile collision. Plaintiff now moves to compel Defendant Meeks’ deposition, which Defendants oppose. Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a) provides: “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 . . . 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 . . . described in the deposition notice.”

Plaintiff noticed the depositions of “the following Employee(s) and/or Person(s) Most Qualified” for Defendant Outsource, naming Defendant Meeks and Defendant Meeks’s supervisor, for November 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., respectively. (Berkley Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. #1.) On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel’s office sent an email to confirm the depositions. (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. #2.) The next day, defense counsel stated that he is not available due to a “calendar conflict.” (Id., ¶ 6 & Exh. #2.) Plaintiff’s counsel faxed a meet-and-confer letter requesting a response within one week proposing alternate dates. (Id., ¶ 9 & Exh. #4.) When defense counsel did not respond, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the depositions for December 11, 2018. (Id., ¶ 10 & Exh. #5.) On December 4, 2018, Defendants served an objection because Defendant Meeks, the PMQ, and defense counsel were not available that date. (Id., ¶ 11 & Exh. #6.) Plaintiff’s counsel again faxed a meet-and-confer letter requesting a response within one week proposing alternate dates. (Id., ¶ 12 & Exh. #7.) When defense counsel did not respond, Plaintiff’s counsel noticed the depositions for January 9, 2019. (Id., ¶ 13 & Exh. #8.) In January 3, 2019, defense counsel stated Defendant Meeks is “out of town” and will not “be back until Mid-June 2019.” (Id., ¶ 14 & Exh. #2.) Plaintiff’s counsel was willing to re-notice the deposition for February 7, 2019. (Id., Exh. #2.) At that point, defense counsel said that Defendant Meeks would not be available until April 22, 24, or 26, 2019. (Ibid.) Plaintiff then filed this motion.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court grants the motion. The Court orders the deposition of Defendant Meeks to occur within thirty (30) days of notice of this order unless Plaintiff stipulates to a different date.

Plaintiff has requested sanctions in the amount of $5,586.65 against Defendant Meeks and counsel-of-record. Based upon this record, the Court finds that Defendant Meeks and his counsel have abused the discovery process. Defendant Meeks argues that the discussions and correspondence referenced only the PMQ, and not Defendant Meeks. This argument is not supported by the deposition notices—which clearly name Defendant Meeks and give a time for the deposition—and the correspondence in which the parties discuss Defendant Meeks’s schedule. However, the Court finds that $5,586.65 is excessive, and the Court is concerned because the time estimates are in thirty minute increments, rather than six minute increments as is common. Therefore, the Court orders sanctions in the amount of $1,060, based upon five hours of attorney time at a reasonable billing rate of $200 per hour, plus the $60 filing fee.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Meeks is granted. The deposition of Defendant Meeks, and all related productions of documents, shall occur within thirty (30) days of notice of this order unless Plaintiff’s counsel stipulates to a different date.

Defendant Meeks and his counsel-of-record are ordered to pay $1,060 in sanctions, jointly and severally, to Plaintiff within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall give notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: May 7, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court