| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions; Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Documents, and for Money and Issue Sanctions
(03) Tentative Ruling
Re: Dawood v. California Department of Transportation Case No. 24CECG00069
Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motion: Defendants’ Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Monetary Sanctions
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Produce Documents, and for Money and Issue Sanctions
Tentative Ruling:
To grant defendants’ motion to compel deposition of plaintiff to appear for his next noticed deposition dates of May 27 and 28, 2026. To order plaintiff to pay sanctions of $1,075. Plaintiff shall pay sanctions to defense counsel within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
To deny defendants’ motion to order plaintiff to produce the documents listed in the deposition notice, as the court has already granted an order requiring plaintiff to produce the documents. The court’s prior order still stands, and plaintiff is required to comply with it. To deny defendants’ motion for an order plaintiff to pay addtiional money sanctions with regard to the document requests, as well as the request for issue sanctions.
However, if plaintiff fails to appear for his deposition again, or fails to produce the documents as previously ordered by the court, then the court will consider whether to order additional sanctions, including further money, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.
Explanation:
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action ... 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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) Also, “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 Civ. Proc., § 2025.450
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Here, the court has already ordered plaintiff to attend his deposition and produce the documents listed in the deposition notice. (See Court’s Order of October 28, 2025.) The court also ordered plaintiff to pay sanctions of $3,331.90. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did appear for his deposition on November 17, 2025. However, he failed to complete the deposition, apparently due to an emergency. When defense counsel tried to reschedule the deposition, plaintiff offered dates of December 29, 2025 and February 10, 2026.
Defense counsel noticed the deposition for those dates. However, plaintiff then stated he could not appear for the December 29, 2025 date. Defense counsel then withdrew the December 29, 2025 date and noticed only the February 10, 2026 date. However, on February 9, 2026, the day before the deposition, plaintiff for the first time stated that he could not attend the deposition, allegedly due to a sudden medical problem. Defense counsel refused to take the deposition off calendar unless plaintiff produced documentation of his medical problem.
Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond before the deposition date, so defense counsel tried to take the deposition on February 10, 2026. Plaintiff failed to appear at the deposition. Thus, defendants have shown that plaintiff failed to appear for his noticed deposition without first serving an objection, and as a result defendants are entitled to an order compelling plaintiff to appear for his deposition as well as monetary sanctions.
While plaintiff claims that his failure to appear was due to lower back pain as stated in a doctor’s note that he has now provided, the doctor’s note was not written until several days after the February 10, 2026 deposition date. Nor does the note indicate that plaintiff’s back pain was so bad that he would have been unable to attend a deposition. Given plaintiff’s history of failing to appear for his deposition, or to complete the deposition that he did appear for, defense counsel was justified in being skeptical that his medical condition actually prevented him from appearing at the last deposition. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff unjustifiably failed to appear at his deposition, and it will order him to appear at the next noticed deposition dates of May 27 and 28, 2026.
In addition, defendants are entitled to an order awarding sanctions against plaintiff for his unjustified failure to appear for his deposition. Sanctions are mandatory where the court grants a motion to compel a party’s deposition, unless the failure to appear is justified or other circumstances make sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Therefore, the court intends to grant defendants’ request for sanctions against plaintiff, in the amount of $1,075.00.
On the other hand, the court intends to deny the motion to grant another order compelling plaintiff to produce documents listed in the deposition notice, as the court has already granted an order compelling plaintiff to produce the documents. That order still stands, so another order is not necessary. The court also declines to grant the motion for issue sanctions, as it does not appear that issue sanctions are warranted at this time. Plaintiff claims that he has now provided his tax records, and he also claims that he has no calendars to produce, so it appears that he has complied with the court’s prior order regarding document production.
He also states that he has paid sanctions as ordered by the court, albeit months after he was ordered to do so. Thus, there is no basis for concluding that he is unjustifiably refusing to comply with the court’s order. As a result, the court intends to deny the motion to the extent that defendants seek another order compelling plaintiff to provide documents, as well as the request for additional money and issue sanctions.
However, if plaintiff fails to appear for his deposition again, or fails to produce the documents as previously ordered by the court, then the court will consider whether to order additional sanctions, including further money, issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 05/12/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
10