RICK VANN ET AL VS MAURY GILES

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****1693    Hearing Date: July 24, 2020    Dept: 29

Vann et al. v. Giles ****1693

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Attendance at Deposition; Request for Sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.

Defendant is entitled to move to compel a party’s appearance at depositions where the party fails to proceed. Cal Code Civ Procedure ; 2025.450. Defendant must show good cause and an effort to meet and confer in good faith. Id.

Defendant did not fully meet and confer in good faith. While Plaintiffs did not appear on 3/3/20, the parties thereafter met and conferred and agreed to reschedule the deposition for 3/20/20. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to appear on that date, and Defendant agreed to send a notice of continuance. Motion, Exhibit B.

However, on 3/18/20, defense counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel an email that the 3/20/20 depositions were being continued to 4/10/20 to arrange for a virtual deposition in light of Covid-19. Opposition, Ex. A. According to Plaintiffs' counsel, the 4/10/20 date was unilaterally scheduled, and Plaintiffs' counsel informed defense counsel that Plaintiffs could not attend due to personal obligations. Declaration of Andrew Aukland, paragraph 11.

Plaintiffs offered additional dates for the rescheduling of the depositions, but defense counsel declined and refused to offer alternatives. Opposition, Ex. B. Declaration of Aukland, paragraph 12. Defendant does not explain why he did not respond to Plaintiff’s efforts to continue to meet and confer. There is no evidence that Plaintiffs are willfully refusing to appear.

There was substantial justification for Plaintiffs’ failure to appear on 4/10/20 due to Defendant’s unilateral continuance of the 3/20/20 depositions. Imposition of sanctions against Plaintiffs would be unjust under these circumstances. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. ; 2025.450(g)(1).

The Court expects the parties to meet and confer to schedule the deposition at a mutually agreeable time.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: ****1693    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 2

Vann et al. v. Giles

Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions for Failure to Obey Court Orders and for Monetary Sanctions filed on 9/30/19 is DENIED without prejudice.

On 7/31/19, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery. Motion, Ex. A. Plaintiffs were ordered to provide verified responses within 30 days and pay sanctions of $1,200 to Defendant. Id. Defendant served a Notice of Ruling on Plaintiffs on 7/31/19. Id. Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s order. Declaration of Elizabeth Chidi, ¶ 9.

Defendant now seeks terminating sanctions. The Court is extremely troubled by Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order. However, “terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application.” Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5^th 154, 191-92.

Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being the last resort. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5^th 154, 191-92. Applying the incremental approach, the Court concludes that further monetary sanctions are warranted at this juncture.

The Court imposes additional monetary sanctions in the amount of $555.00 against Plaintiffs to be paid within 30 days.

Plaintiffs are admonished that they must comply with the Court’s previous orders to provide written, verified responses to avoid further sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ case. If Plaintiffs fail to comply within the next 20 days, Defendant may renew the motion for terminating sanctions.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: ****1693    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: 2

****1693 Vann, et al v. Giles

On the court’s own motion, the hearing on the Motion for Terminating Sanctions set for 12/4/19 is continued to 1/6/2020 at 1:30 p.m. in Department SS-2. The due date for the opposition and reply is based on the original hearing date.