Case Number: BC695263 Hearing Date: April 04, 2019 Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

THERESSIA L. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

JOSHUA KADISHA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC695263

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL; IMPOSING SANCTIONS

Dept. 3

1:30 p.m.

April 4, 2019

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on four occasions, and each time Plaintiff canceled the deposition at the last minute and/or failed to appear. This includes Plaintiff’s 2/28/19 deposition, which date was selected by Plaintiff, but which date Plaintiff canceled unilaterally and without explanation on 2/26/19.

On 2/26/19 and 2/27/19, the attorneys wrote back and forth via e-mail. The e-mail chain is attached as Exhibit F to the moving papers. Defense Counsel asked why the deposition was being canceled at the last minute. Plaintiff’s attorney responded that Defense Counsel could ask Plaintiff at her deposition, and did not provide any substantive reason for the cancellation. Defense Counsel asked for dates for a continued deposition. Plaintiff’s attorney wrote back with a list of dates that would NOT work, which included most of the month of April. No dates were mentioned in March, despite the fact that the meet and confer was happening in February, and Defense Counsel had asked for dates in March. Indeed, there were no specified dates that DID work, only a list of dates in April (constituting most of the month) that did not work. Defense Counsel wrote back and asked Plaintiff’s attorney to choose one of three specified dates in March if Plaintiff wished to avoid a motion. Plaintiff’s attorney wrote back and refused. Both attorneys threatened to seek sanctions. Defendant then noticed the deposition for 3/14/19, and Plaintiff failed to appear.

The Court has reviewed the parties’ meet and confer correspondence and finds Plaintiff has been unreasonable. Plaintiff canceled her third deposition, which was set on a date she had personally chosen, only two days prior to the scheduled deposition. When asked for dates, she provided only a laundry list of dates she was not available in April. This is not helpful.

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition contains a lengthy discussion concerning demands for production of documents. There is no document demand included with the notices of deposition. It is unclear how the discussion concerning production of documents relates to the issues before the Court on this motion.

The motion to compel is granted. CCP §2025.450. The attorneys are ordered to meet and confer immediately after the hearing to select a mutually agreeable date for deposition within the next two weeks. Plaintiff and her attorney are ordered to make at least five days in the next two weeks available for deposition.

The Court finds sanctions are appropriate under the circumstances. The Court finds Defendant’s request for a total of $1120 in fees and costs is both reasonable and fully supported by Defense Counsel’s declaration. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, joint and severable; they are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $1120, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.