On 05/17/2018 ALEX CHERNY filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against TRACY BALL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI, JAMES A. KADDO and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
JAMES A. KADDO
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
DOES 1 - 25 INCLUSIVE
KRUGER JACKIE ROSE
TESKE CHRISTOPHER S.
BARABAN JEFFREY HOWARD
1/13/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL (SETTLEMENT))
11/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
12/9/2019: Trial Transfer Order - TRIAL TRANSFER ORDER TO JUDGE KADDO, DEPT. I, VAN NUYS, OTR TODAY AT 1:30 P.M.
12/9/2019: Exhibit List
12/9/2019: Brief - BRIEF RE: MEET AND CONFER
11/26/2019: Exhibit List
12/4/2019: Statement of the Case
12/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
11/26/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE NOT PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY
11/27/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
11/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
11/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TRACY BALL'S DEPOSITION AND/OR SHORTENING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION DEFENDANT TRACY BALL AND SET
11/5/2019: Notice of Ruling
11/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/31/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE)
10/4/2019: Motion to Compel - MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TRACY BALL'S DEPOSITION
12/14/2018: Notice - Notice of Unavailability if Counsel
5/17/2018: Summons -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement))); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement)) of 01/13/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department I, James A. Kaddo, Presiding; Jury Trial - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department I, James A. Kaddo, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (- Eileen O'Toole); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Jury Trial)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Jury Trial - Held - ContinuedRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice (of Unavailability if Counsel); Filed by Alex Cherny (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketStipulation and Order (of the Parties to Strike References to Punitive Damages in the Complaint); Filed by Jeffrey Howard Baraban (Attorney)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Rejection - Pleadings; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Tracy Ball (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Tracy Ball (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service of Tracy Ball; Filed by Alex Cherny (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaintRead MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover SheetRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Alex Cherny (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Alex Cherny (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC706796 Hearing Date: October 29, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Compel Deposition; Request for Sanctions
Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows.
On May 17, 2018, Plaintiff Alex Cherny (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Tracy Ball (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 through 25, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff alleged that the acts of Defendants were negligent, the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to Plaintiff, and the acts occurred on October 4, 2016, at the intersection of Havenhurst Avenue and Kalisher Street, in Granada Hills, California.
On October 22, 2018, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.
Trial is set for November 18, 2019.
Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant to attend his deposition and produce requested documents. Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,061.65. In the alternative, Plaintiff moves for an order striking Defendant’s answer and entering default against him (if Defendant is not produced for deposition by the time of trial).
C.C.P. §2025.450(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) 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.
(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) 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.
(g) If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) 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.
The court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after an opportunity for hearing, may impose sanctions for misuses of the discovery process, including monetary and terminating sanctions. (C.C.P. §2023.030(a), (d).) Misuses of the discovery process include failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery. (C.C.P. §2023.010(d), (g).)
Plaintiff Alex Cherny (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Tracy Ball (“Defendant”) to attend his deposition and produce requested documents. Plaintiff also requests an award of sanctions against Defendant and his attorneys of record in the amount of $2,061.65. In the alternative, if Defendant is not produced for deposition by the time of trial, Plaintiff seeks an order imposing terminating sanctions, striking Defendant’s answer and entering default against Defendant.
Plaintiff did not timely serve Defendant with the instant motion. Plaintiff’s proof of service shows that Defendant was served with the motion via overnight mail on October 4, 2019, which is less than 16 court days plus 2 calendar days (for overnight delivery) before the October 29, 2019 hearing. (See C.C.P. §1005(b).)
Based on the foregoing, unless Defendant agrees at the hearing to waive the inadequate notice, the Court will CONTINUE the motion hearing to November 26, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. so Defendant will have sufficient notice of the motion.
The Court is inclined to grant the motion to compel Defendant’s deposition. Plaintiff served Defendant with a Notice of Taking Deposition, setting the deposition for September 27, 2019, the date stipulated to by the parties, and Defendant failed to appear for the deposition. (Declaration of Kruger ¶¶4-11; Exhibit A.) Counsel has not provided new dates for Defendant’s deposition, despite the promise to do so and requests by Plaintiff’s counsel. (Declaration of Kruger ¶¶11-14; Exhibit B.)
The Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant on the ground that Defendant’s position appears to be substantially justified and Plaintiff’s effort to seek terminating sanctions constitutes overreaching in this case. The request for terminating sanctions is plainly premature, as the imposition of terminating sanctions is a drastic measure not warranted here. (See Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793 (“The sanction of dismissal or the rendition of a default judgment against the disobedient party is ordinarily a drastic measure which should be employed with caution. [Citation] However, there is no question that a court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations. [Citation] The refusal to reveal material evidence is deemed to be an admission that the claim or defense is without merit. [Citations]”).).
If Defendant agrees to waive the short notice on the motion, the Court will issue an order granting the motion to compel Defendant’s deposition within 20 days on a mutually agreeable date and denying sanctions for the reasons explained above.
Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling.