What is a Motion to Compel Deposition?

A party may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, if after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection, fails to appear for examination, or proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(a).)

How to Structure the Motion

If a motion seeks to order the deponent to produce documents listed in the deposition notice, then the motion must “set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electrically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(1).)

An objection to a deposition question does not excuse the deponent from the duty to answer unless the objecting party demands the deposition be suspended to allow for the filing of a motion for protective order. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.460(b), 2025.470.) Otherwise, the deponent must answer the question and the testimony will be received, subject to the objection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.460(b).)

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel the deposition of a party to the action must also be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when the deponent failed to attend the deposition, a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(b)(2).)

Monetary Sanctions

“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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450(g)(1).)

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition

KATHLEEN MARAZONI VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2018, Plaintiff Kathleen Marazoni (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metroplitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent retention arising from a bus colliding into Plaintiff while she was in a motorized wheelchair on May 9, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

OTERO VS. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.

Motion to Compel Deposition Defendant Albertson’s LLC (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Greg Otero (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

WALTER DONLEY, AN INDIVIDUAL VS FRANK LARA, AN INDIVIDUAL, JR, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Walter Donley (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Frank Lara, Jr. and Rubio’s Fleet. The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 25, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

DEMATTEI V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Sanctions are awarded against both the plaintiff and her counsel, joint and several, as follows: Motion to Compel Deposition—$698 Motion to Deem Admitted—$554 Compel Special Interrogatories—$460 Compel Form Interrogatories—$460 Compel Production—$460 Sanctions of $2,632 shall be paid by the plaintiff and her counsel to the defendant within 30 days. The defendant shall prepare the appropriate order and give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

NITA LOGGINS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Fredy E. Salazar. The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 29, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ARSHAM MELKONIAN, ET AL. VS OPHC, LLC DBA OAKPARK HEALTHCARE CENTER, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is DENIED as moot. The Court finds that Defendant Oakpark’s counsel’s declaration is sufficient evidence that McGrath is not an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant Oakpark. Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to issue a deposition subpoena in order to compel the deposition of McGrath.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JINN ONG VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s senior repurchase reviewer Dave McWhorter, with production of documents. The Court continued the hearing on this motion from March 6, 2020 to permit supplemental briefing to address the Court’s online tentative regarding whether McWhorter is a “managing agent” for purposes of a party-affiliated deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

SERGIO ANGEL GARCIA VS BARONHR LLC ET AL

Motion To Compel Deposition Defendant Plastic Express moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and requests the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff has not submitted to a deposition on the date noticed, and would not agree to a date for the deposition to be reset.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel production of a competent PMK by Defendant FCA US, LLC, and requests sanctions. Discussion: Although Defendant’s PMK deposition occurred on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff argues that he was unable to provide competent testimony as to 24 of the 33 requested categories: Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to 25. (Declaration of Amy Morse ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

EDUARDO GUZMAN VS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Gustavo Gutierrez A. Relevant Law The service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JULIE HSIN TING LEE AU VS KIM TUYET HUYNH

Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Ruthie Stockfish (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Amos Stockfish, Aliakbar J. Neyestani, Shirin Neystani, and Neystani Family Trust. The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on May 14, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

RUTHIE STOCKFISH VS AMOS STOCKFISH ET AL

AMENDED TENTATIVE RULING Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony The Court rules as follows after considering the moving, opposing, and reply papers filed in relation to Defendant Duggan Property Management, Inc.’s motion to compel further deposition testimony from Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

ADELINA CORCIO, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

.: 19STCV03750 Hearing Date: June 29, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) Motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication (2) motion to compel deposition of General Motors’s pmk Background Plaintiffs Adelina Corcio and Luis Espinoza (collectively, Plaintiffs) commenced this action against Defendant General Motors LLC (GM) on February 4, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GUANGQUAN XU, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS ROBERT WHITAKER, A TRUSTEE, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition Under section 2025.450: 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 or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

WAID VS RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL COMPANY, LLC

C) Motion to Compel Deposition Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“MTC”) is DENIED. Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to CCP §§ 2025.450 and 2025.480 to compel Defendant’s Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) to answer additional questions about seven topics and seven document categories (“categories” together) “concerning or relating to the maintenance of the SUBJECT PROPERTY's exterior staircases (other than the SUBJECT STAIRS).”

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

LAUREN JOSEPHSON VS CASA HERMOSA APARTMENTS ET AL

Motion to Compel Deposition and IME Defendants filed this motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and IME on 3/04/20, shortly before the statewide emergency declaration in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The crux of the issue on the motion is whether Plaintiff’s deposition and/or IME should be conducted in Nevada or California. It is undisputed that Plaintiff resides in Nevada, and that the slip and fall that forms the basis of this litigation occurred in Los Angeles.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

VEGA VS. SMITH

Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Elcheikh. Motion granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of defendant Souheir Elcheikh (Elcheikh) is granted in part and denied in part, as follows. The motion is granted to the extent it seeks an order compelling defendant Elcheikh to appear and testify at deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

REBECCA BANKS VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE INC

.: BC709873 Hearing Date: June 26, 2020 Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is DENIED. Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant to appear for deposition via its Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) and its employee John Bolton. Discussion On December 17, 2019, Plaintiff noticed the deposition of both Defendant’s PMK and its employee John Bolton. Defendant did not appear for either deposition schedule for January 7, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ELIAS GONZALEZ LORENZO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

. §2025.450(b)(1) provides that, “[t]he motion [to compel deposition] 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.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANITA HERREMAN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION Date of Hearing: June 25, 2020 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: BC709978 Motion for Summary Judgment Moving Party: Defendant Russell L. Berney as Trustee of the F & J Butler Trust Responding Party: No opposition. Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition Moving Party: Defendant Russell L. Berney as Trustee of the F & J Butler Trust Responding Party: No opposition.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

NAKATA FITCH ET AL VS GRACE YOUNGERS ET AL

Defendants Grace Youngers and Sidney Youngers’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Nakata and Leigh Fitch is GRANTED. MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITION A party may make a motion compelling a witness’s deposition “after service of a deposition notice” if that witness “fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must include a meet-and-confer declaration and show good cause for the discovery sought. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1), (2).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

VENERA MYSEL VS ALEX CARNEVALI

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION (CCP §2025.450) Date: 6/25/20 (2:00 PM) Case: Venera Mysel v. Alex Carnevali (18GDCV00090) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Venera Mysel’s Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition and to Produce is GRANTED IN PART.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

RAFFAELLO SANTI, ET AL. VS LYFT, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Lyft’s Motion for Protective Order/Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition July 6, 2020 Lyft moves for an order (1) that Plaintiff’s 5 deposition notices be stayed and/or quashed and that the depositions take place where the PMQ designee(s) reside, Nashville, Tennessee; (2) that the depositions proceed at a mutually convenient date and time; (3) that Plaintiffs be precluded from discovering how the Lyft mobile app was developed or any proprietary, confidential, commercially sensitive and trade secret matters

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

AME LOPEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Motion to Quash Subpoena; Motion to Compel Deposition The Court considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers in relation to the motion to quash a subpoena. The Court also considered the moving and opposing papers in relation to the motion to compel a deposition. No reply papers were filed in response to the motion to compel a deposition. The Court rules as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

VIVERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION VS BLAINE HOLDING & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

CCP §2025.450, which governs motions to compel deposition, provides that “[i]f, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action…without having served a valid objection under §2025.410, fails to appear for examination…the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony.” (CCP §2025.450(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 128     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.