Motion to Compel Attendance of Fraisure Smith for Deposition
(49) Tentative Ruling
Re: Smith v. Abakah et al. Superior Court Case No. 24CECG01640
Hearing Date: June 4, 2026 (Dept. 503)
Motion: By Defendant Joseph Abakah to Compel Attendance of Fraisure Smith for Deposition
Tentative Ruling:
To grant the motion and compel Fraisure Smith to appear for deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The parties are directed to meet and confer on dates for the deposition, which shall occur within three weeks from service of the order by the clerk.
To impose monetary sanctions in favor of Joseph Abakah and against Fraisure Smith. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).) Plaintiff is ordered to pay $1966 in sanctions to Schroeder Schaff & Low, Inc., within 30 days of the clerk’s service of the minute order.
Explanation:
Defendant Joseph Abakah (“Defendant”) moves to compel plaintiff Fraisure Smith (“Plaintiff”) to appear for a deposition. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion.
Proper service of a notice of deposition compels any deponent who is a party to the action to attend, to testify, and to produce documents if requested. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).) Where a party deponent fails to appear at a properly noticed deposition, and no timely, valid objection under section 2025.410 has been served, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony. (Id., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
On April 7, 2026, Defendant served Plaintiff with the Notice of Taking Videotaped Deposition of Plaintiff, Fraisure Earl Smith. (Shroeder Decl., ¶ 2.) The deposition of Plaintiff was scheduled for April 28, 2026. (Ibid.) On April 17, 2026, Plaintiff served a document responding to Defendant’s discovery requests. (Id., ¶ 3, Exh. B.) Plaintiff did not appear for the April 28, 2026 deposition. (Id., ¶ 7.) On May 4, 2026, Defendant called Plaintiff for the reason to Plaintiff’s nonappearance. (Id., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff’s response was Plaintiff’s objection to the deposition notice and that Plaintiff would not comply. (Ibid.)
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?”
Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion. Defendant has met the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450. Accordingly, the motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff is granted. Plaintiff is directed to appear for deposition.
Defendant has additionally requested sanctions against Plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (g)(1). Code of Civil Procedure section 13
2025.450, subdivision (g)(1), states in pertinent part “the court shall impose a monetary sanction...in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent”. Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay $1,966 in sanctions to Schroeder Schaff & Low, Inc., within 30 days of the service of the minute order.
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: JS on 6/3/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
14