Case Number: VC065928 Hearing Date: January 29, 2019 Dept: SEC

LEON v. NODA

CASE NO.: VC065928

HEARING: 01/29/19

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#3

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel the Deposition and Production of Documents of Defendant LILLIAN M. NODA GRANTED. CCP § 2025.450.

Moving Party to give Notice.

No Opposition filed as of January 28, 2019.

Defendant LILLIAN M. NODA is ORDERED to appear for a deposition, without objection. The parties shall meet and confer to determine the date, time, and location of the depositions, which shall take place no later than 15 days from the date of this hearing. The date may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Defendant LILLIAN M. NODA is ORDERED to pay Plaintiffs and their counsel of record, sanctions in the total amount of $1,260.00 ($400/hr. x 3 hrs.) + ($60.00 filing fee) no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

A party may obtain discovery by taking oral depositions. (CCP §2025.010.) CCP §2025.450, which governs motions to compel deposition, provides that “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…without having served a valid objection under §2025.410, fails to appear for examination…the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.” (CCP §2025.450(a).) The code states that a party can procure the attendance of an individual at a deposition by way of notice only if the prospective deponent is “a party to the action” or “an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party….” (CCP §2025(h)(1).)

A motion to compel deposition and production of documents must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP §2025.450(b)1).) For example, where specific facts are shown that the documents sought are necessary for effective trial preparation, good cause has been demonstrated. (Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1967) 65 Cal.2nd 583. 587.) Once good cause for production has been shown, the objecting party has the burden to file evidence to justify objections. (Kirkland v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.)

The motion is granted. The Court finds that the Moving Party has established good cause for the instant motion to compel. The Moving Papers and accompanying evidence detail why the requested deposition is necessary for an effective trial. Moreover, as of January 28, 2019, no Opposition has been filed.

If [the] motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction…in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP §2025.450(g)(2).)

Defendant does not oppose the instant motion to compel. As such, there is nothing to show that Defendant acted with substantial justification and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is granted as set forth above.