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).)
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).)
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).)
“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).)
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) filed by M4 MacArthur, LLC filed on 5/26/20 2. Motion to Compel Production filed by M4 MacArthur, LLC Plaintiff, M4 MacArthur, LLC’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. The motion is unopposed. Off Calendar
Sep 28, 2020
Orange County, CA
Tentative ruling for September 18, 2020 on Motion to Compel Deposition with Production of Documents The court denies Defendant LJT Flowers, Inc.'s motion to compel an in-person deposition, but grants, in part, the motion to produce documents in connection with a remote deposition, subject to the court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to quash, also heard on this date. No sanctions are awarded. I think the court should deny the motion and have the parties confer over a date for a video deposition.
Sep 18, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Ventura County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 6. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 7. Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Admissions This matter is continued. Clerk to give notice.
Sep 18, 2020
Orange County, CA
Motion: By Plaintiff SmartMed to Compel Deposition of Defendant Vantage’s Person Most Knowledgeable By Plaintiff SmartMed to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions No.’s 1-4 (Set One), Form Interrogatory 17.1, Request for Production of Documents No.’s 143-148 (Set Five), and Special Interrogatories No.’s 6-8 (Set Two) Tentative Ruling: The motion to compel the deposition of defendant Vantage’s person most knowledgeable was withdrawn the day before the hearing.
Sep 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Fresno County, CA
.: 18SMCV00212 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motionS to compel deposition of PLAINTIFFS’ PMK BACKGROUND On November 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Hero Dogs Season One LLC (“Hero Dogs”) and Nuriya Entertainment LLC (“Nuriya”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the original complaint against Defendants Dean A. Avedon (“Avedon”), Bemel, Ross & Avedon, LLP (“Bemel”), David Beitchman (“Beitchman”), and Beitchman & Zekian a Professional Law Corporation (“Beitchman & Zekian”).
Sep 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The court agrees the following fees should be deducted from Huante’s proposed lodestar: 2.4 hours ($1,320) of undated work; 5 hours ($1,120) preparing a motion to compel further that this court denied; 4.0 hours ($1,200) preparing a motion to compel deposition that this court denied; 1 hour ($250) to attend a deposition that GM noticed would not be attended; 4.8 hours ($1,200) to prepare yet another defective motion to compel deposition; 5.2 hours ($4,180.00) to prepare the present motion for attorney
Sep 17, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
Benito Giacalone CASE NUMBER: 19STCP03650 MOTION: Motion to compel deposition of Faisal Bin Aziz Saud Motion to Deem Request For Admissions Admitted HEARING DATE: 9/17/2020 Background & Discovery Dispute On July 26, 2019, the Labor Commissioner issued a Notice of Order, Decision, or Award (the “Award”) in favor of Giacalone in the amount of $123,311.99. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 3.)
Sep 17, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
In opposition, Plaintiff notes he has filed his own motion to compel deposition as Plaintiff has not been able to set a deposition date and Defendant has refused to confirm his willingness to attend. If Defendant is seeking a protective order for after the deposition, Defendant has not shown good cause.
Sep 16, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a non-appearance of the noticed party. “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it … the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony…” (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) Plaintiff Gutierrez submitted no opposition to the motion. The motion is granted.
Sep 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Currently, Defendant moves (1) to compel Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental interrogatories and RPDs, (2) to submit tardy expert witness information, and (3) to compel deposition of Plaintiff’s retained experts or exclude them from testifying at trial. Plaintiff opposes each of the motions. As of 9/10/20, no replies have been filed. The court notes trial in this matter was originally set for 2/26/20.
Sep 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Shek (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1 (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set 1 (4) Motion to Deem the Truth of Facts in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set 1 Admitted (5) Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Shek The court considered the moving, opposition, reply, supplemental opposition, and supplemental reply papers.
Sep 16, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) Tentative Ruling: Defendants Yuanjing Zhang and Duanjin Zheng’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Jo Ann McCullough is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $519.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel is GRANTED.
Sep 15, 2020
Orange County, CA
This is a motion to compel deposition by a deponent who failed to appear for deposition; this is not a motion to compel further deposition answers from a deponent who already sat for deposition. Section 2025.480 applies when the deponent has already sat for deposition, and is roughly analogous to a motion to compel further written discovery responses. Here, Goalwin has not sat for deposition, and therefore, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 is the proper grounds for this motion.
Sep 15, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Shelton’s (Defendant/Cross-Complainant) Motion to Compel Deposition of Fenn Termite’s (Plaintiff/Cross- Defendant) Employee. Jason Shelton moves for (1) an order compelling the attendance of Fenn Termite’s employee, Sonia Iniguez, at a deposition; (2) sanctions of $13,905; and (3) an order finding Iniguez in contempt. The court orders cross-defendants to produce Ms. Iniguez for a deposition within 10 days and awards sanctions of $13,830 against cross-defendants.
Sep 11, 2020
Orange County, CA
The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner’s motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to depose Mr. Lauricella. In support of deposition, petitioner furnished a declaration from its attorney who spoke with Mr. Lauricella.
Sep 11, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner's motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to depose Mr. Lauricella. In support of deposition, petitioner furnished a declaration from its attorney who spoke with Mr. Lauricella.
Sep 11, 2020
STEVEN M. G E V E R C E R
Sacramento County, CA
.: 19STCV07224 Hearing Date: September 11, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) Motion to compel plaintiff’s responses to hilland’s requests for production of documents, set one (2) motion to compel deposition of hilland’s pmk Background Plaintiff Adrienne O’Niell (Plaintiff), by and through her attorney-in-fact Desiree O’Niell, commenced this action against Defendants LAD Carson-N, LLC (LAD) on March 1, 2019. Plaintiff named Hilland of Carson, Inc. (Hilland) as a Doe Defendant on June 3, 2019.
Sep 11, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 19STCV07224 Hearing Date: September 11, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: (1) Motion to compel plaintiff’s responses to hilland’s requests for production of documents, set one (2) motion to compel deposition of hilland’s pmk Background Plaintiff Adrienne O’Niell (Plaintiff), by and through her attorney-in-fact Desiree O’Niell, commenced this action against Defendants LAD Carson-N, LLC (LAD) on March 1, 2019. Plaintiff named Hilland of Carson, Inc. (Hilland) as a Doe Defendant on June 3, 2019.
Sep 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
GENERAL MOTORS LLC (19STCV31895) Counsel for Plaintiff/moving party: David Barry (The Barry Law Firm) Counsel for Defendant/opposing party: Mary Lynn Arens, Cameron Major (Erskine Law, PC) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’s PMK (filed 6/22/2020) The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The court orders Defendant’s PMK to appear for a deposition within the next thirty-days. Topic Categories: Defendant is ordered to produce a PMK on topic nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12.
Sep 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The issue of the ability of the Court to compel a party to engage in a remote deposition is not clear, as such the Court denies the Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of General Motors PMK.
Sep 11, 2020
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiff FCMT, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Dot Dot Smile, LLC’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED in part.
Sep 11, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanctions If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction 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. CCP § 2025.450(g)(1).
Sep 10, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Keyes European Mercedes-Benz Technician No 410 is denied without prejudice to plaintiff filing a separate motion. Counsel are reminded to comply with the First Amended General Order filed on May 3, 2019 which requires, all efiled documents to be bookmarked. Future failure to comply with the General Order may result in a delay in hearing. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.
Sep 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the motion to compel deposition is GRANTED as to Douglas Vela, and DENIED as to all other witnesses. The court declines to award sanctions to either party as the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Sep 10, 2020
Employment
Other Employment
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff Jennifer Rodriguez’ Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant General Motors LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records is Denied as follows. Plaintiff failed to adequately meet and confer as required by C.C.P. sections 2016.040 and 2025.410. Defendant timely served an Objection to the Deposition Notice. (See Munoz Decl., ¶ 5, Exhibit B.)
Sep 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
