Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions
8
fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspe ction any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described i n 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 docume nt, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.
Here, Plaintiff has established service of a deposition notice as to Tompkins, Congdon, and Lopez, respectively. No valid objections under Section 2025.410 were served. Plaintiff has also provided evidence that on the noticed dates for each deposition, which were June 29, July 1, and July 3, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel and a court reporter appeared on zoom for the deposit ions. Neither defense counsel nor any deponent appeared. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling each of the three deponents’ attendance and testimony.
Sanctions. Sanctions are mandatory under CCP 2025.450(g)(1). A reasonable hourly rate i s determined by the prevailing rate charged to attorneys of similar skil l and experience in the relevant community. See PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095. Plaintiff requests sanctions of $2,250.00 on the Motion to Compel the Appearance of Davi d Lopez for Deposition. This consists of 5 attorney hours at a rate of $450.00. This hourly rate is higher than the prevailing rate for attorneys of similar skill and experience in Shasta County. No evidence has been submitted that competent local counsel could not be retained. Therefore, the Court will award attorney fees at a rate of $400 per hour. Hours will be reduced by 2, because no opposition was filed and no reply brief was needed. Total sanctions are $1,200.00.
Each of the three Motions to Compel Appearance for Deposition of Bailey T ompkins, Kimberly Congdon, and David Lopez are GRANTED. Sanctions of $1,200.00 are imposed in favor of Plaintiff Perry against Advanced Crisis Solutions, Inc. No proposed orders were lodged as required by Local Rule 5.17(D). Plaintiff is directed to prepare the orders.
PERRY VS. ADVANCED CRISIS SOLUTIONS, INC. CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0205612 Tentative Ruling on Motion to Compel Further Responses to Specia l Interrogatories: Plaintiff seeks further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Two. The motion is properly noticed and unopposed.
Meet and Confer: Pursuant to Ca. Code of Civ. Pro. section 2030.300(b) a motion t o compel further responses must be accompanied by a meet and confer declara tion. The Declaration of Noriya Bragg establishes compliance with this requirement.
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?”
Merits: The scope of discovery is broad. Any matter that is admi ssible evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible eviden ce is relevant and subject to discovery. CCP § 2017.010. Any doubts as to the relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790. A party propounding interrogatories may move for further responses if the responses are evasive/incomplete or contain unmeritorious objections. CCP § 2030.300(a)(1) & (3).
The interrogatories at issue, numbers 27 and 28, seek the identities of current and former employees who, within the preceding six years, complained of sex or gender-b ased mistreatment to Plaintiff's supervisor, Kimberly Congdon, or to Ryan Tucker, the decision-maker involved in