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

RAMIREZ VS L J T FLOWERS

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB VS. HILL

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 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”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GUADALUPE MATA HUANTE VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BENITO GIACALONE VS FAISAL BIN AZIZ SAUD, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

JEFFREY A SLOTT, INDIVIDUALLY VS AHMET JOHN BEDIZEL, INDIVIDUALLY

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EVELYN RAMOS VS 4688 HUNTINGTON DRIVE LLC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

MARHNAZ RAD ET AL VS SALOME L SHEK ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

FAITH MORGAN VS SHIRLEY SCHYMAN ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

MCCULLOUGH VS. ZHANG

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

FENN TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL INC. VS SHELTON

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Judge

    STEVEN M. G E V E R C E R

  • County

    Sacramento County, CA

SOL LEE VS HAN TAE CHOE, ET AL.

.: 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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ADRIENNE ONIELL, BY AND THROUGH HER ATTORNEY IN FACT, DESIREE ONIELL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS CARSON NISSAN, ET AL.

.: 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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JAMILAH JACKSON VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

UGALDE VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

FCMT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DOT DOT SMILE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiff FCMT, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Dot Dot Smile, LLC’s Person Most Qualified is GRANTED in part.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KAREN ABRAMIAN VS MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

ISSAC MILTON ABRAMS, ET AL. VS ATLANTIC MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.

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).

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JANE DOE 2 VS BARLOW RESPIRATORY HOSPIITAL, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

RODRIGUES V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

CESAR SOLORIO V. FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER

Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of James McCurley and for sanctions related thereto, and to Re-Open Discovery if necessary Tentative Ruling: To re-open discovery, and to grant Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of James McCurley. Mr. McCurley is ordered to appear remotely for his deposition and to produce all requested documents on or before September 20, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STEVEN H GEDALJE ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant Ford Motor Company’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED except as to Matters Nos. 13, 25, and 26-29. Matters Nos. 30, 31-36, 37, and 38 are granted but modified to only request information about vehicles of the subject vehicle’s year and model. Both parties’ requests for sanctions are DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 137     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.