HENRY G. RODAS, ET AL. VS MIGUEL GARCIA-SANCHEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC10565    Hearing Date: June 3, 2021    Dept: 26

Rodas, et al. v. Garcia-Sanchez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kenny Rodas’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS KENNY RODAS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF KENNY RODAS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cynthia L. Suarez’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS CYNTHIA L. SUAREZ IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA L. SUAREZ AND COUNSEL FO RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Kenny Rodas, Cynthia L. Suarez and others (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez (“Defendant”) on August 13, 2018.

Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Kenny Rodas and Cynthia L. Suarez’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions (“the Motions”) on April 1, 2021. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (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, subd. (a).) The motion must also “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” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (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. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

The motions are accompanied by declarations demonstrating that defense counsel repeatedly sought dates from Plaintiffs’ counsel on which Plaintiffs Kenny Rodas and Cynthia L. Suarez would be available for deposition. (Motions, Gillard Decl., ¶2.) When Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond, defense counsel served deposition notices for July 13, 2020. (Id. at Exh. A.) Plaintiffs Kenny Rodas and Cynthia L. Suarez did not appear for their scheduled depositions. (Id. at ¶3.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter on July 14, 2020, to which no response has been made. (Id. at Exh. B.) The Court finds this meet and confer effort complies with the statutory directive to address the deponent’s non-appearance.

Based on Plaintiffs Kenny Rodas and Cynthia L. Suarez’s failure to cooperate in the taking of their depositions, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling their appearance and an award of sanctions. However, the sanctions sought are excessive under a lodestar calculation. Each request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $690.40 based on half-an-hour of attorney time billed at $300.00, plus $478.75 in court reporter fees and $61.65 in costs. (Motions, Gillard Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Kenny Rodas’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS KENNY RODAS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF KENNY RODAS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Cynthia L. Suarez’s Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS CYNTHIA L. SUAREZ IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF CYNTHIA L. SUAREZ AND COUNSEL FO RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC10565    Hearing Date: March 30, 2021    Dept: 26

Rodas, et al. v. Garcia-Sanchez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Siddy K. Rodas’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF SIDDY K. RODAS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF SIDDY K. RODAS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Silvia K. Ceballos’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SILVIA K. CEBALLOS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF SILVIA K. CEBALLOS AND COUNSEL FO RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Siddy K. Rodas, Silvia K. Ceballos and others (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez (“Defendant”) on August 13, 2018.

Defendant filed the instant Motions to Compel Plaintiffs Siddy K. Rodas and Silvia K. Ceballos’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions (“the Motions”) on March 2, 2021. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (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, subd. (a).) The motion must also “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” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (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. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

The motions are accompanied by declarations demonstrating that defense counsel repeatedly sought dates from Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding dates on which Plaintiffs Siddy K. Rodas and Silvia K. Ceballos would be available for deposition. (Motions, Gillard Decl., ¶2.) When Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond, defense counsel served deposition notices of July 13, 2020. (Id. at Exh. A.) Plaintiffs Siddy K. Rodas and Silvia K. Ceballos did not appear for their scheduled depositions. (Id. at ¶3.) Defense counsel sent a meet and confer letter on July 14, 2020, to which no response has been made. (Id. at Exh. B.) The Court finds this meet and confer effort complies with the statutory directive to address the deponent’s non-appearance.

Based on Plaintiffs Siddy K. Rodas and Silvia K. Ceballos’ failure to cooperate in the taking of their depositions, Defendant is entitled to an order compelling their appearance and an award of sanctions. However, the sanctions sought are excessive under a lodestar calculation. Each request for sanctions is granted in the amount of $690.40 based on half-an-hour of attorney time billed at $300.00, plus $478.75 in court reporter fees and $61.65 in costs. (Motions, Gillard Decl., ¶6.)

Conclusion

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Siddy K. Rodas’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SIDDY K. RODAS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF SIDDY K. RODAS AND COUNSEL OF RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff Silvia K. Ceballos’ Attendance at Deposition and Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SILVIA K. CEBALLOS IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AT A DATE AND TIME DETERMINED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER. PLAINTIFF SILVIA K. CEBALLOS AND COUNSEL FO RECORD ARE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY ORDERED TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $690.40 TO DEFENSE COUNSEL WITHIN 20 DAYS’ SERVICE OF THIS ORDER.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC10565    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 26

Rodas, et al. v. Garcia-Sanchez, et al.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.450)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 30, 2021 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiffs Cynthia L. Suarez, Silvia K. Ceballos, Kenny Rodas, Siddy Rodas (“Plaintiff”), and Lexxie Rodas (“Minor Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Miguel Garcia-Sanchez (“Defendant”) on August 13, 2018. Defendant filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Attendance at Deposition on December 30, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (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, subd. (a).) The motion must also “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” and “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (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. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Discussion

The motion is accompanied by a meet and confer declaration demonstrating that defense counsel reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to resolve this discovery dispute following Plaintiffs’ failure to appear for their properly noticed depositions on July 13, 2020. (Motion, Gillard Decl., ¶¶2-3 and Exh. A.) However, the Court notes that Defendant brings the instant Motion with respect to four separate Plaintiffs, instead of separately moving as to each party as contemplated by the statute. Also, filing the motions as a single motion negatively impacts the court’s calendar by placing more motions on the calendar than slots have been provided by the online reservation system. Finally, it allows the moving party to avoid paying the requisite filing fees. Statutorily required filing fees are jurisdictional and “it is mandatory for the court clerks to demand and receive statutorily required filing fees.” (See Duran v. St. Luke’s Hospital (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 457, 460.) Defendant’s motion, therefore, cannot be heard in full until three additional filing fees are paid.

The Motion is also defective because it fails to “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” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b). Broadly stating that the deposition are necessary to “ascertain the nature and extent of Plaintiffs’ claims of negligence and damages” is not sufficiently specific to address the document demands attached to the deposition notices. (See Motion, p. 4:4-6.)

In light of Defendant’s failure to comply with the mandatory requirements for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, the Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition and Request for Sanctions is CONTINUED TO MARCH 30, 2021 AT 10:30  AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. AT LEAST 16 COURT DAYS PRIOR TO THE CONTINUED HEARING DATE DEFENDANT IS TO FILE AND SERVE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS ADDRESSING THE DEFECTS NOTED ABOVE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING PLACED OFF CALENDAR OR DENIED. ANY OPPOSITION AND REPLY PAPERS ARE TO BE FILED PER THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

Moving party to give notice.