BARBARA SCHLICK VS SAFEWAY INC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****9043    Hearing Date: February 10, 2020    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendant has noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on multiple occasions. The parties agreed to continue the deposition several times, and ultimately the deposition was scheduled for 12/23/19. Plaintiff failed to appear at her properly noticed deposition on 12/23/19. At this time, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and seeks to recover sanctions.

The motion to compel is granted. CCP ;2025.450(a) requires the Court to grant a motion to compel deposition unless the deponent has served a valid objection to the notice of deposition. Plaintiff did not object to the notice of deposition, but did not appear. Of note, Plaintiff’s attorney contends Plaintiff was sick on 12/23/19, but the evidence before the Court shows that neither Plaintiff nor her attorney called Defense Counsel’s office to inform Defendant of the sickness; on the contrary, Defense Counsel had to call Plaintiff’s attorney to inquire about why Plaintiff and her attorney were not at the deposition. It appears Plaintiff’s attorney e-mailed Defense Counsel’s secretary the morning of the deposition, but because the secretary was out that morning, the message was never conveyed to Counsel. Notably, Plaintiff’s attorney did not respond to meet and confer attempts concerning payment of the court reporter fee and/or rescheduling the deposition.

Plaintiff’s attorney declares he has tried to call Plaintiff, but has lost communication with Plaintiff. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to keep her attorney informed of the means to contact her. The Court is hopeful that Counsel has other means, such as e-mail or snail mail, by which to contact Plaintiff prior to the scheduled deposition. The Court cannot extend the time for deposition, as Plaintiff requests, because trial is scheduled to commence on 4/20/20.

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition on 2/18/20 at 10:00 a.m. at the Law Office of Weston Herzog, LLP, 550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1190, Glendale, CA 91203.

The Court notes that the notices of deposition appear to include a demand for production of documents (only the face page of the notices is included with the moving papers, so this is not entirely clear); additionally, Defendant’s notice of motion and moving papers fail to mention documents to be produced at deposition. The moving papers fail to show good cause for production of the documents sought, as required by ;2025.450(b)(1). To the extent Defendant is trying to obtain an order compelling Plaintiff to produce documents at deposition, the Court declines to enter such an order, but urges the parties to work together to resolve any issues concerning documents without court intervention.

Defendant seeks sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1530.15. Sanctions are mandatory. ;2025.450(c). The Court finds the amount reasonable and fully supported by Defense Counsel’s declaration. Plaintiff and her attorney of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant, by and through counsel of record, in the amount of $1530.15, within twenty days.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.