On 05/03/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by ARTHUR YAZICHYAN against MERCEDES BENZ USA LLC in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
DOES 1 TO 20
MERCEDES-BENZ USA LLC
8/6/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities
8/7/2019: Ex Parte Application
5/15/2019: Minute Order
5/29/2019: Minute Order
12/7/2018: Stipulation and Order
9/21/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
11/5/2018: Separate Statement
11/5/2018: Motion to Compel
10/11/2018: Case Management Order
10/11/2018: Minute Order
9/20/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/26/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT
6/5/2018: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION
6/11/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
6/21/2018: NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT AND OF ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO GIVE NOTICE
5/3/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 09:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 24 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status ConferenceRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 24; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Trial Setting Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase Management Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 24; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Order to Continue Trial to Complete Discovery) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Order to Continue Trial t...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketDEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR OTHER CONTACT INFORMATIONRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by Arthur Yazichyan (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC704510 Hearing Date: January 29, 2020 Dept: 24
Plaintiff Aurthur Yazichyan’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff Aurthur Yazichyan (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant lemon law action against Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (“Defendant”) on June 13, 2018.
On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s “non-retained expert witnesses” or in the alternative for an order excluding the witnesses from testifying at trial. On January 15, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply.
There are several notice issues that must be addressed. Defendant contends that the instant motion was improperly noticed against it. Plaintiff contends that it properly noticed the instant motion against Mercedes-Benz of Arcadia ("MBA"), the dealership. Of course, both parties are incorrect. The relevant parties that should have received notice of this motion are the deponents themselves. The instant notice fails to mention these individuals, and only obliquely refers to them as Defendant’s “non-retained expert witnesses” without specifically mentioning whose depositions Plaintiff seeks to compel. The parties’ confusion is somewhat understandable since Defendant is the only party mentioned in the notice, despite Plaintiff’s contention that the motion was directed at MBA. Further compounding this ambiguity is that this motion improperly brings multiple motions to compel. There are no less than twelve motions to compel presented by the instant motion. None of these witnesses are even mentioned in the entirety of the notice or motion. These motions are therefore defective against all the non-party deponents.
The disputes presented in this motion also highlight another defect in the notice and motion. The notice of motion must state in the first paragraph exactly what relief is sought and the grounds. (CCP § 1010; CRC 3.1110(a).) The instant motion makes no reference to any proper moving authority. The notice of motion only references CCP section 2024.030, which provides the time limits for conducting discovery. Reviewing the entirety of the motion and reply, Plaintiff offers no statutory authority that would empower the Court to compel the deposition of any non-party deponent. At best, Plaintiff cites statutes which state a nonparty witness who fails to appear in response to a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without a prior court order directing that witness to comply with the subpoena, and may be liable for damages to the subpoenaing party. (CCP § 2020.240; Civ. Code § 1992.) Plaintiff has not discussed the elements of contempt or offered any evidence of contempt. Furthermore, a contempt citation would not logically provide for compelling attendance, as this would be separate relief from a motion to compel.
Underscoring the lack of authority, Plaintiff argues that section 2025.480 does not apply regarding the timeliness of the motion. However, Plaintiff does not state what statute should apply. Notably, Plaintiff’s cited secondary authority suggests that section 2025.480 would apply to compel a third party’s attendance to a deposition. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 8E-6 at 8:609.1 [citing CCP § 2025.480(b) and Unzipped for the proposition that “[i]f a nonparty disobeys a depo subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record.” (Emphasis removed.)].) As to the applicability of this statute, Plaintiff argues that the deposition record was never even completed. This only highlights another issue: the instant motions are unripe. Plaintiff fails to cite any provision of the CCP that authorizes this Court to compel a non-party’s deposition proactively, prior to a non-appearance. Without a failure to obey a deposition subpoena (i.e. failure to appear), then the non-party never actually disobeyed the deposition subpoena and thus cannot be compelled to do so.
While the Court encourages the parties to informally resolve the substantive issues, relief cannot be granted at this time. The Court will note that failure to attend a properly noticed deposition or produce properly requested documents, followed by a proper motion to compel, will result in an order to compel and monetary sanctions.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.