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

JUAN PALMA ET AL VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

Motion to Compel Deposition of SARC PMK Re: Nurse Education Legal Standard See Motion #1. Discussion Plaintiffs move the court for an order to compel SARH’s PMQ on a variety of topics, including nursing policies, procedures, and education (collectively, “Nurse Education”) to appear for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

JUDI BEDDOW, ET AL. VS ALTEC, INC.,, ET AL.

As to witnesses Dave Cunningham, Philippe Cueto, Ken Jones, Bryce Chumley, Chris Pepin, Jason Kobler, Corey Wells, and Bryce Dallas, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel deposition is DENIED. Plaintiffs are required to issue deposition subpoenas to the third-party witnesses in order to compel their depositions. Defendant is ordered to provide Plaintiffs forthwith the witnesses’ last known contact information.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

JORDON MODESTI, ET AL. VS MARINA N KAVANAGH

A motion to compel deposition shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ETI COHEN VS BEYOND THE BEAUTY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Issue No.2: Monetary Sanctions If a motion to compel deposition is granted, the court must 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. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

OSCAR ESCOBEDO, ET AL. VS EMANATE HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER , ET AL.

A motion to compel deposition shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CARLOS HALILI VS FCA US, LLC

.: 20stcv17362 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to compel deposition of defendant fca’s person most knowledgeable Background Plaintiff CARLOS HALILI (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant FCA US LLC (FCA) on May 6, 220. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2018 Ram 1500 (Vehicle).

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

RAYMOND A. PADILLA VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

.: 18STCV02854 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to compel deposition BACKGROUND Plaintiff Raymond A. Padilla (“Plaintiff”) filed this medical malpractice action against Defendant Nancy Ann McCarthy, M.D. (“Defendant”), among others. Now, Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant. The motion is granted. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff served a deposition notice on Defendant. (Declaration of Benjamin Fogel, ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 19STCV10080 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION to compel deposition of defendant GM’s person most knowledgeable Background Plaintiff Jason Smith (Plaintiff) commenced this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (GM) on March 25, 2019. The Complaint asserts causes of action for violations of the Song Beverly statute. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his purchase of a 2012 Chevy Cruze (Vehicle).

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

VILLALVAZO VS. BODEGA LATINA CORP

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) Tentative Ruling: The Court DENIES Plaintiff, Rafael Villalvazo’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant, Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super and Request for Production of Documents in its entirety. Plaintiff fails to establish that prior to filing the instant motion, defendant failed to appear at the noticed depositions without having served a valid objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a)-(b).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

SHANE ASHTON VS PEP BOYS

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff Shane Ashton (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant The Pep Boys – Manny, Moe & Jack of California (erroneously sued as Pep Boys) (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges negligence and premises liability arising from an incident that occurred on July 2, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

OVERLAND DIRECT, INC. VS YANIV TEPPER, ET AL

Sanctions It has been established that 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).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DESIGN CREATOR, INC. VS L.A. MICRO GROUP, INC., ET AL.

[TENATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION In July 2020, the parties signed a stipulation to continue the trial in this case to a date after the trial in a pending English case. The stipulation expressly did not stay this case and stated it did not preclude any party from otherwise proceeding with the litigation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

1) Motion for Sanctions 2) Motion to Compel Deposition – OFF CALENDAR by Stipulation 3) Motion to Compel Physical/Mental Examination -- OFF CALENDAR per Notice by Moving Party (ROA #845) Before the Court is a Motion by Plaintiff H.K., by and through her Guardian ad Litem, Lois K.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

MARIA ANGELIQUE AVITIA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC,,, ET AL.

Conclusion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant’s PMK is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SOLTER V. WU

1) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) 2) Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories Defendants Hien Wu (“Wu”), Nadya Lesmana, and Hien Wu and Nadya Lesmana, Trustees of the Hien Wu and Nadya Lesmana Living Trust Dated April 11, 2016 (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order compelling plaintiff Frederick Solter (“Plaintiff”) to appear at his deposition and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,228.30 against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Meet and Confer A motion to compel deposition must be accompanied by a good faith meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040 or, “when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARGARET KEYES VS LISA ZEDER, ET AL.

motion to compel deposition and continue motion for summary judgment Date of Hearing: November 25, 2020 Trial Date: None set. Department: W Case No.: 19VECV01202 Moving Party: Plaintiff Margaret Keyes Responding Party: Defendants L.Z. Design Group, Inc. and Lisa Zeder BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages alleging Defendants improperly acted as a contractor without proper state licensure.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STOLLER V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Stoller) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents of Defendant General Motors LLC’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable and Custodian(s) of Records (Motion), filed on 6-17-20 under ROA No. 101, is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Abuzeid, Esq. in Regards to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition [ROA 309] and the Supplemental Declaration of Bryan Pease in Support of Motion to Compel Deposition [ROA 310]. Nothing in either declaration causes the court to rule in a manner other than as set forth above.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ANIMAL PROTECTION AND RESCUE LEAGUE INC VS RAMIREZ

Abuzeid, Esq. in Regards to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition [ROA 309] and the Supplemental Declaration of Bryan Pease in Support of Motion to Compel Deposition [ROA 310]. Nothing in either declaration causes the court to rule in a manner other than as set forth above.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

K. V. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) CONTINUED TO JANUARY 4, 2021 on the Court’s motion

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

WITHERSPOON VS. J AND P HOMES, INC.

Motion to Compel Deposition OFF CALENDAR NOTICE OF TAKING THE MOTIONS OFF CALENDAR FILED 11/12/20

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

DAVID CHAVEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On September 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel deposition attendance of Defendant’s PMK and production of documents. ANALYSIS: I. Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents A. Legal Standard 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, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

DAVID CHAVEZ VS FCA US, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Deposition and Production of Documents Moving Party: Plaintiff David Chavez Resp. Party: None (2) Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories Moving Party: Plaintiff David Chavez Resp. Party: Defendant FCA US, LLC (3) Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories Moving Party: Plaintiff David Chavez Resp.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

RAMOS V GRANITE ROCK CO.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF RAMOS This hearing will be continued 30 days so that the Parties can further meet, confer, an agree on a weekday in December or January for Plaintiff’s deposition 1

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 143     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.