Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition
23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 07/10/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff Patricia Alexanders (Plaintiff) motion to compel defendant in pro per Peter Kim (Dr. Kim) to appear and testify at his deposition is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
This is an employment action arising from Plaintiffs former employment with Sierra Oaks Dental.
Plaintiff noticed the deposition of Dr. Kim on April 17, 2025, setting the deposition for May 23, 2025. (Declaration of Nathan Searcy (Searcy Decl.) ¶ 2, Exhs. 1 and 2.) On May 14, 2024, Plaintiff served Dr. Kim with confirmation of the May 23, 2025, deposition, including the Zoom information. (Searcy Decl. ¶ 3, Exhs. 3 and 4.) On May 23, 2025, Dr. Kim did not serve any objections to Plaintiffs deposition notice and failed to appear. (Searcy Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. 5.) Plaintiffs counsel called Dr. Kim multiple times regarding his nonappearance, but never received a response. (Searcy Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.)
Plaintiff moves to compel Dr. Kims attendance and testimony at deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a), which provides, If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410 [regarding defects in deposition notice], 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. § 2025.410.)
Here, Plaintiff served Dr. Kim with a deposition notice, Dr. Kim did not serve any objections or any communication that he would not appear, and Dr. Kim failed to appear. Further, Dr. Kim has failed to oppose, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728
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?”
Dr. Kim shall appear and testify at deposition at 9:00 a.m. on July 28, 2025, remotely via Zoom, or upon a different date and time if the parties mutually agree.
Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions against Dr. Kim in the amount of $3,307.50 is GRANTED, but in the reduced amount of $2,107.50 (representing three hours of attorney time at the rate of $400 per hour, plus Court Reporter costs of $907.50).
23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 07/10/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54
Sanctions to be paid no later than August 11, 2025, and, if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV007585: ALEXANDER vs PETER J. KIM, DDS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, et al. 07/10/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 54