Tentative Ruling: Ivan Zuniga Hernandez vs Judith Share Bay

Case Number

24CV06332

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/15/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel; Motion for Order Compelling Answers to Depo Questions

Tentative Ruling

1. (1) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of plaintiff for an order compelling defendant’s answers to deposition questions is continued to August 7, 2026. On or before July 31, 2026, plaintiff shall lodge with the court a certified copy of any parts of the transcript of the deposition that are relevant to plaintiff’s motion.
2. (2) For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendant for an order compelling an in-person session of plaintiff’s deposition is granted, in part. On or before May 22, 2026, plaintiff shall provide to defendant three dates on which plaintiff is available to attend a deposition in person. On or before May 29, 2026, defendant shall select, and notify plaintiff’s counsel of, the date for plaintiff’s deposition from those provided by plaintiff. To the extent plaintiff fails to provide dates on which they are available to attend a deposition by the deadline prescribed herein, defendant may unilaterally select and notice a date for plaintiff’s deposition. Alternatively, plaintiff may move for a protective order, if appropriate. Further, the court awards sanctions in favor of defendant and against plaintiff Ivan Zuniga Hernandez and their counsel of record, The Stoll Law Firm, jointly and severally, in the amount of $7,363.81, payable to defendant’s counsel of record. Payment of sanctions is due by June 15, 2026.

Background:

As alleged in the complaint of plaintiff Ivan Zuniga Hernandez, on June 2, 2023, at the intersection of Carrillo Street and Miramonte Drive in Santa Barbara, Judith Share Bay, who was intoxicated by drugs and alcohol, caused their vehicle to collide with a bicycle operated by plaintiff, causing plaintiff to sustain personal injuries and damages. (Complaint, ¶¶ MV-1, MV-2, & GN-1.)

On November 13, 2024, plaintiff filed their complaint against defendant Judith Share Bay, asserting two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. The complaint includes a claim for punitive damages. (Complaint, ¶¶ EX-1 & EX-2.)

On December 23, 2024, defendant Bay filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses.

On September 25, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion for an order (the Plaintiff Motion) compelling defendant to provide complete further responses to deposition questions purportedly unanswered or improperly objected to by defendant, and for an award of monetary sanctions payable to the court. Defendant opposes the Plaintiff Motion.

On October 3, 2025, defendant filed a motion for an order compelling an in person session of plaintiff’s deposition, and for an award of monetary sanctions (the Defendant Motion). Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Defendant Motion with the court.

The Plaintiff Motion and the Defendant Motion were each calendared for hearing on January 9, 2026. On December 19, 2025, the court signed and filed an order pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, continuing those motions to April 10, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the court issued a notice resetting the hearings to May 15.

Analysis:

(1)       The Plaintiff Motion:

The Plaintiff Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, which requires a moving party to “[n]ot less than five days prior to the hearing on this motion, ... lodge with the court a certified copy of any parts of the stenographic transcript of the deposition that are relevant to the motion. If a deposition is recorded by audio or video technology, the moving party is required to lodge a certified copy of a transcript of any parts of the deposition that are relevant to the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (h).)

In support of the Plaintiff Motion, plaintiff has submitted copies of deposition notices ostensibly served on defendant and correspondence between counsel for the parties, and has filed a supporting separate statement. Court records reflect that plaintiff has not lodged a certified copy of any parts of the transcript relevant to the Plaintiff Motion, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480. For these reasons, the Plaintiff Motion fails to comply with code requirements.

For all reasons discussed above, the court will continue the hearing on the Plaintiff Motion to allow plaintiff to lodge a certified copy of any parts of the transcript of defendant’s deposition that are relevant to that motion.

                                         

(2)       The Defendant Motion

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under [Code of Civil Procedure] [s]ection 2025.230, 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).)

In the Defendant Motion, defendant contends that, though plaintiff was served with deposition notices in January and April of 2025, setting dates for plaintiff’s deposition on March 6 and May 28, 2025, those depositions did not go forward. (Motion at pp. 5-6.)

Defendant further asserts that on July 1, 2025, plaintiff was served with a “second amended” deposition notice (the Notice) of the taking of a videotaped deposition of plaintiff on August 15, 2025. (Motion at p. 6; Cullman Dec., exhibit A.) Defendant contends that numerous communications between counsel for the parties confirm that the deposition scheduled on August 15 would be held in person in Camarillo, California, and that attorney Cullman would travel from Santa Cruz and stay in a hotel in order to attend that deposition. (Motion at pp. 7-8; Cullman Dec., exhibit B.)

The Defendant Motion shows that on August 15, 2025, counsel for the parties appeared at the location for the deposition of plaintiff, and that plaintiff’s counsel told attorney Cullman that plaintiff would not be appearing at the deposition that day because his ride did not show up. (Motion at pp. 8-9; Cullman Dec., exhibit C [deposition transcript] at p. 6.) Plaintiff’s counsel told plaintiff to go to his law office in Santa Barbara and to prepare to appear for their deposition by Zoom. (Cullman Dec., exhibit C at pp. 8-9.)

The Defendant Motion also shows that, though plaintiff’s counsel suggested that counsel, the court reporter, the interpreter, and the videographer drive to the office of plaintiff’s counsel in Santa Barbara for plaintiff’s deposition, attorney Cullman objected because the deposition notice set the location for plaintiff’s deposition in Camarillo, and attorney Cullman had a previously scheduled engagement in Camarillo after the conclusion of plaintiff’s deposition. (Cullman Dec., exhibit C at pp. 8-10.) Additionally, plaintiff’s counsel stated they would not produce plaintiff for another deposition because plaintiff was available by Zoom. (Cullman Dec., exhibit C at pp. 11-12.) For all reasons discussed above, defendant argues, plaintiff should be ordered to appear in person for a deposition.

“Any party served with a deposition notice that does not comply with Article 2 (commencing with Section 2025.210) waives any error or irregularity unless that party promptly serves a written objection specifying that error or irregularity at least three calendar days prior to the date for which the deposition is scheduled, on the party seeking to take the deposition and any other attorney or party on whom the deposition notice was served.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a).) Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the Defendant Motion, and presents no information or evidence showing that plaintiff served any written objection to the Notice.

“The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Plaintiff also presents no information or evidence showing why service of the Notice was ineffective to require plaintiff to attend and testify at a deposition on August 15, 2025.

Plaintiff also presents no reasoned argument showing why the form of the Notice fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.220. In addition, court records reflect that plaintiff did not move for a protective order that plaintiff not be required to attend their deposition in person, or that the deposition be taken only by Zoom or at a place other than specified in the Notice. (See terms Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (b)(4), (5) [also authorizing a protective order “[t]hat the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions.”].)

Moreover, though the Notice includes what appear to be general statements suggesting that the deposition would be conducted remotely, the record of correspondence between counsel for the parties reflects that plaintiff understood that the deposition would be conducted in person, and that on August 14, plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that plaintiff would attend their deposition in person at the location stated in the Notice. (Cullman Dec., exhibit A at pp. 2-3, ¶¶ 1-4; exhibit B.)

Under the totality of the circumstances present here, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will grant the Defendant Motion, and order plaintiff to appear for a deposition at the location and time specified in the Notice. The court will further order plaintiff to, on or before May 22, 2026, provide to defendant three dates on which plaintiff is available to attend a deposition at that location and time. Defendant shall, on or before May 29, 2026, select a date for plaintiff’s deposition from those provided by plaintiff, and notify plaintiff’s counsel of that date. To the extent plaintiff fails to provide dates on which they are available to attend a deposition by the deadline prescribed herein, defendant may unilaterally select and notice a date for plaintiff’s deposition.

Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent or preclude plaintiff from moving for an appropriate protective order, if warranted.

“If a motion under subdivision (a) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450] 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).)

“The award of discovery sanctions is a matter within the trial court’s discretion[]” and should be tailored to the harm and appropriate to the misuse of the discovery process at issue. (Karz v. Karl (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 637, 648; Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

Absent any reasoned factual or legal argument showing why plaintiff acted with substantial justification in failing to attend their deposition at the location specified in the Notice, or any effort by plaintiff to seek a protective order demonstrating good cause for why their deposition should not be taken on the conditions specified in the Notice, the court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions is justified under the circumstances present here, which are sufficient to show that plaintiff failed to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)

Though an award of monetary sanctions is justified here, the amount of sanctions must be “reasonable under the circumstances....” (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a) [providing for an award of monetary sanctions for reasonable expenses].) “The principle of reasonableness means a trial court has discretion to reduce the amount of fees and costs requested as a discovery sanction in order to reach a reasonable award.” (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare Reit, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 791.)

Information appearing in the exhibits to attorney Cullman’s declaration shows that the sanctions requested in the Defendant Motion include costs incurred in connection with the preparation of the transcript attached to attorney Cullman’s declaration; interpretation services; cancellation of video services provided by Array; and hotel, meal, and travel expenses. (Cullman Dec., exhibits G, H.) The record shows or suggests that certain charges included in the sanctions request were ostensibly incurred after the conclusion of the deposition, including on August 16. (Cullman Dec., exhibit H.) Considering that the transcript of the deposition shows that deposition was suspended at 10:41 a.m. on August 15, 2026, the Defendant Motion fails to show why all of the claimed fees and expenses are reasonable under the circumstances present here. (Cullman Dec., exhibit C at p. 14.)

The Defendant Motion also shows that the hourly rate charged by attorney Cullman is $220. (Cullman Dec., ¶ 13.) Attorney Cullman also states that the hourly rate for the associate attorney who drafted the Defendant Motion is $200. (Cullman Dec., ¶ 12.) Though the court finds that those hourly rates are reasonable, the attorney’s fees requested in the Defendant Motion include time to review an opposition, and prepare a reply. Noted above, plaintiff has not filed an opposition to that motion.

Furthermore, the Defendant Motion does not present novel or complex issues of fact or law. For these reasons, the time expended by the associate attorney to prepare that motion suggests the existence of inefficient efforts which are “not subject to compensation.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132.) The Defendant Motion also fails to explain why any hours expended to prepare for plaintiff’s deposition are reasonable under the circumstances considering that counsel will need to prepare for plaintiff’s deposition notwithstanding the date on which that deposition proceeds.

For all reasons discussed above, and based on the court’s experience in addressing attorney fee issues, the court finds that an award of monetary sanctions in the amount of $7,303.81 reflects the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses incurred as a result of plaintiff’s conduct. The reduction in the amount of monetary sanctions requested in the Defendant Motion reflects an adjustment to account for inefficient efforts, and unreasonable expenses. The court will also award defendant filing fees incurred to file the Defendant Motion, in the amount of $60. Sanctions shall be made payable to defendant’s counsel.