Motion to Compel Deposition (Judge William A. Crowfoot)

Case Number: 24NNCV02807    Hearing Date: November 18, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

ALEJANDRO GUZMAN,            Plaintiff(s), vs.   SUBWAY, et al.,   Defendant(s).

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: 24NNCV02807   [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF NABI MERCHANT AND NOORI MERCHANT; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS   Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. November 18, 2025

On October 22, 2025, plaintiff Alejandro Guzman (“Plaintiff”) filed this motion for orders compelling the depositions of defendants Nabi Merchant and Noori Merchant (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendants and counsel of record in the amount of $8,449.35.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff served deposition notices on Defendants’ counsel on October 9, 2025, scheduling Defendants’ depositions for October 21 and 22, 2025. (Panosian Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 11.) Plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that defense counsel would be in trial in Colusa County in early November and requested a response by October 15, 2025, if the noticed dates did not work. (Id.) Defendants did not serve objections to the deposition notices and failed to appear for the depositions. This motion was subsequently filed on October 22, 2025.

The party served with a deposition notice waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) In addition to serving this written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of the deposition and quashing the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (c).) “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . without having served a valid objection . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because they already agreed to appear for their depositions on December 10, 2025, in an email dated September 19, 2025, and Plaintiff’s counsel accepted these dates on September 30, 2025. Defendants claim that no objections were served in response to Plaintiff’s deposition notices because they did not anticipate that the dates in the notices would be different from those that were previously discussed. Defendants also claim, without authority, that the deposition notices were ineffective because they were served by Sylvia V. Panoasian, who was not the attorney of record at the time.

Without a valid objection, Defendants were required to attend their depositions and it is undisputed that they failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel their attendance is GRANTED.

Where a motion to compel a party’s appearance and testimony at deposition is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent, unless the court finds the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

Defendants argue that sanctions should not be imposed on them because there was a previous agreement on September 30, 2025, that the depositions would take place in early December. However, Defendants do not dispute that their attorney received a follow-up email on October 9, 2025, which was sent after attempts to reach their attorney by telephone failed. In this email, Plaintiff’s counsel noted that a December deposition date would no longer be agreeable because the parties’ joint report represented that discovery would be completed by October or November. The deposition notices were unilaterally noticed and served with ample time for Defendants to provide alternate dates in November. Plaintiff’s counsel suggested that even if defense counsel were in trial, perhaps the depositions could be scheduled around his trial schedule or another attorney could defend the depositions since defense counsel was not a sole practitioner. Yet, Plaintiff’s counsel never received a response to her email requesting alternate dates.

In light of the following, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED and Defendants are ordered to appear for their depositions within 10 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $3,349.35 consisting of 2 hours at counsel’s hourly rate at $850 and a $65 filing fee, $946.85 for certificates of non-appearance, and $637.50 to reserve a conference room, payable within 10 days of the date of this Order.

          Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 18th day of November 2025

	William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court