Case Number: BC655729 Hearing Date: October 17, 2018 Dept: 4

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Attendance at Deposition

The court considered the moving and plaintiff’s response.

BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2017, plaintiff Kip Grant filed a complaint against defendant Villa Metropolitano, LP for negligence and premises liability. Plaintiff alleges that on February 13, 2017, defendant so negligently, carelessly, and recklessly owned, maintained, controlled, possessed, repaired, inspected, operated, designed, built, managed, and cleaned the bathroom located at 1320 S. Hope St., #408, Los Angeles, so as to cause plaintiff to slip, lose his balance, and fall in the bathtub, causing plaintiff to sustain damages.

Trial is set for March 28, 2019.

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests an order compelling plaintiff to appear for his deposition, within ten days of hearing.

CCP §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.”

CCP § 2025.450(b) provides, “A motion under subdivision (a) 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.

(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.”

On November 17, 2017, defendant served a notice of deposition upon plaintiff, for December 8, 2017. He failed to appear. On June 20, 2018, defendant served a notice of deposition, for July 27, 2018. He failed to appear.

According to plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, plaintiff is incarcerated at Men’s Central Jail and that he cannot physically attend the location of the deposition. He states that plaintiff has always been available for deposition and that it must be conducted at Men’s Central. He states that he has informed defense counsel numerous times that plaintiff is incarcerated.

Defendant requests $1,610.50 in sanctions against plaintiff and his counsel of record, Raymond Ghermezian. The court finds that plaintiff acted with substantial justification. The court denies defendant’s request for sanctions.

The court ORDERS:

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for his deposition within 20 days at Men’s Central Jail.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 17, 2018

_____________________________

Christopher K. Lui

Judge of the Superior Court