Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: Kharoufeh v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation Case No. 23CECG04600
Hearing Date: May 19, 2026 (Dept. 502)
Motions: Defendant, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff, Alyah Kharoufeh
Tentative Ruling:
The motion to compel deposition is moot.
To grant sanctions in favor of the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation’s and against plaintiff and/or her counsel Larry Shapazian and/or against the law firm Tomassian, Pimentel & Shapazian, in the amount of $7,226.95. Plaintiff and/or her counsel Larry Shapazian and/or the law firm Tomassian, Pimentel & Shapazian shall pay sanctions to the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation within 30 days of the date of service of this order.
Explanation:
Defendant, California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (“CDCR” or “defendant”) makes this motion to compel plaintiff, Alyah Kharoufeh (“Kharoufeh” or “plaintiff”), to attend a deposition scheduled for April 13, 2026.
Despite CDCR’s best efforts for more than a year, plaintiff’s deposition has yet to be completed. As such, on March 27, 2026 at the pretrial discovery conference, this court directed that Kharoufeh’s deposition occur prior to April 30, 2026, and that the instant motion to compel would remain on calendar.
The March 27, 2026 order reads as follows:
The parties, after discussion and negotiation, agree to the following order:
Plaintiff is ordered to appear for her continued deposition before April 30, 2026. lf Plaintiff is still seeking mental and emotional distress damages that she alleges or contends are current, a mental examination will take place. lf after the deposition it appears she is still seeking such damages and issues arise, Defendant may file a Request and the court will address any issues at that time in terms of the length of the examination and whether materials will be provided to
counsel. The currently set motion to compel will go forward on April 28.
Both parties acknowledge that Kharoufeh’s sat for a full day of deposition on April 13, 2026 and that no deposition notice is currently pending for any further sessions. Accordingly, there is no pending properly served, unobjected to, deposition notice that Kharoufeh’s has failed to appear at. CDCR’s request that the Court require Kharoufeh a second day of deposition in the event that the December 2026 mediation is not successful, is currently premature.
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?”
With respect to sanctions, “[i]f 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, subd. (g)(1); Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.)
CDCR requests monetary sanctions of $7,226.95. CDCR contends it incurred fees and costs in expenses of $2,500, court reporter costs of $626.95 and videographer costs of $600 due to plaintiff’s failure to appear at, and/or complete her deposition. (Heidi Machen Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. H.) CDCR further provides that incurred an additional $1,000 in fees and costs for re-noticing and re-preparing for depositions. (Id., at ¶ 17.) CDCR also asserts it incurred an additional $2,500 “in fees and costs of preparing this motion to compel and will incur additional costs in drafting a response brief and potentially in making an appearance in the event that Plaintiff opposes this motion.” (Id., at ¶ 19.)
Under these circumstances, sanctions are warranted given the repeated and numerous last minute deposition cancellations, by plaintiff and her counsel the repeated failure of plaintiff and her counsel to work with defense counsel to reschedule her deposition, and the fact that a full day of deposition testimony was only completed after this Court’s intervention
Accordingly, sanctions in the amount of $7,226.95 are granted.
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 05/15/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
4