Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [1855 – 2107] ( Heading of Part 4 amended by Stats. 1965, Ch. 299. )
TITLE 4. CIVIL DISCOVERY ACT [2016.010 – 2036.050] ( Title 4 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )
CHAPTER 9. Oral Deposition Inside California [2025.010 – 2025.620] ( Chapter 9 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

ARTICLE 4. Objections, Sanctions, Protective Orders, Motions to Compel, and Suspension of Depositions [2025.410 – 2025.480] ( Article 4 added by Stats. 2004, Ch. 182, Sec. 23. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) 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 Section 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.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

(c) In a motion under subdivision (a) relating to the production of electronically stored information, the party or party-affiliated deponent objecting to or opposing the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.

(d) If the party or party-affiliated deponent from whom discovery of electronically stored information is sought establishes that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of the undue burden or expense, the court may nonetheless order discovery if the demanding party shows good cause, subject to any limitations imposed under subdivision (f).

(e) If the court finds good cause for the production of electronically stored information from a source that is not reasonably accessible, the court may set conditions for the discovery of the electronically stored information, including allocation of the expense of discovery.

(f) The court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible, if the court determines that any of the following conditions exists:

(1) It is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

(2) The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.

(3) The party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought.

(4) The likely burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs the likely benefit, taking into account the amount in controversy, the resources of the parties, the importance of the issues in the litigation, and the importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues.

(g) (1) If 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.

(2) On motion of any other party who, in person or by attorney, attended at the time and place specified in the deposition notice in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of that party 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.

(h) If that party or party-affiliated deponent then fails to obey an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party deponent or against the party with whom the deponent is affiliated. In lieu of, or in addition to, this sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that deponent or against the party with whom that party deponent is affiliated, and in favor of any party who, in person or by attorney, attended in the expectation that the deponent’s testimony would be taken pursuant to that order.

(i) (1) Notwithstanding subdivisions (g) and (h), absent exceptional circumstances, the court shall not impose sanctions on a party or any attorney of a party for failure to provide electronically stored information that has been lost, damaged, altered, or overwritten as the result of the routine, good faith operation of an electronic information system.

(2) This subdivision shall not be construed to alter any obligation to preserve discoverable information.

(Amended by Stats. 2012, Ch. 72, Sec. 24. (SB 1574) Effective January 1, 2013.)

CCP § 2025.450 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2025.450 outlines the procedure for a party to compel the attendance, testimony, and production of documents or other evidence from a deponent who fails to comply with a deposition notice.

Specifically, if a party, or someone affiliated with a party (like an officer, director, or designated representative), fails to appear for a deposition, fails to proceed with it, or fails to produce requested documents, electronically stored information (ESI), or tangible things, the party who issued the deposition notice can file a motion with the court to compel compliance.

To make such a motion, the requesting party must demonstrate “good cause” for the production of any requested items and include a “meet and confer” declaration (showing an attempt to resolve the issue informally). If the deponent simply failed to attend, a declaration stating that contact was made to inquire about the non-appearance is sufficient.

The statute includes special provisions for ESI:

• If a deponent argues that ESI is not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or expense, they bear the burden of proving that claim.
• Even if the ESI is deemed not reasonably accessible, the court can still order its discovery if the requesting party shows “good cause,” potentially setting conditions like cost allocation.
• The court must limit ESI discovery if it’s available elsewhere more conveniently, is duplicative, has already been sought, or if the burden outweighs the benefit.

If the motion to compel is granted, the court generally *must* impose monetary sanctions against the non-compliant deponent or their affiliated party, unless their actions were substantially justified or other circumstances make sanctions unjust. Further, if the deponent still fails to obey a court order to compel, the court can impose more severe sanctions, including issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions, in addition to further monetary sanctions.

Finally, the statute provides a “safe harbor” for ESI, stating that sanctions should not be imposed for the loss of ESI due to the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic system, absent exceptional circumstances. However, this does not absolate parties from their duty to preserve discoverable information.

Purpose of CCP § 2025.450

The core purpose of California Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450 is to ensure the smooth and effective functioning of the discovery process in civil litigation. Depositions are a cornerstone of discovery, allowing parties to gather crucial information, clarify facts, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of a case. Without mechanisms to enforce compliance, a party could easily obstruct discovery by simply refusing to appear, testify, or produce relevant evidence.

This statute addresses the problem of non-compliance by providing a clear legal pathway for the noticing party to compel a deponent’s participation and production. It prevents litigation from being stalled or undermined by uncooperative parties. By requiring “good cause” for production and a “meet and confer” effort, it encourages targeted discovery and attempts at informal resolution before court intervention, promoting judicial efficiency.

The detailed provisions regarding electronically stored information (ESI) reflect the modern landscape of evidence, where digital data is increasingly vital. These provisions aim to balance the demanding party’s need for relevant ESI with the potential burden and expense for the producing party, especially when information is stored in less accessible formats. The statute seeks to ensure that valuable digital evidence is made available, while also preventing overly burdensome or disproportionate discovery requests.

Ultimately, CCP § 2025.450 serves to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency in litigation, ensuring that all parties have a reasonable opportunity to obtain the information necessary to prepare their case.

Real-World Example of CCP § 2025.450

Imagine Sarah was severely injured in a slip and fall accident at “Grand Mart” grocery store. She believes the store’s negligence led to her fall and has filed a personal injury lawsuit. Sarah’s attorney schedules a deposition for Mr. Thompson, the store manager, to question him about the store’s safety protocols, maintenance records, and what he observed after the accident. The deposition notice also requests that Grand Mart produce security camera footage from the aisle where Sarah fell, as well as any incident reports.

On the scheduled deposition date, Mr. Thompson fails to appear, and Grand Mart’s attorney offers no valid objection or explanation for his absence. Furthermore, the requested video footage and incident reports are not produced. Sarah’s attorney immediately tries to contact Grand Mart’s attorney to understand why Mr. Thompson didn’t show up and why the documents weren’t provided, but receives no satisfactory response.

Under CCP § 2025.450, Sarah’s attorney can now file a “Motion to Compel Deposition.” In this motion, her attorney would:

1. State the facts: Detail that a deposition notice was properly served, specifying the date, time, and documents requested, and that Mr. Thompson failed to appear and Grand Mart failed to produce the items.
2. Show “good cause”: Explain why Mr. Thompson’s testimony and the security footage/incident reports are crucial to Sarah’s case – for instance, to establish liability, prove the store’s knowledge of the hazard, or identify other witnesses.
3. Provide a “declaration”: Attach a declaration stating that they contacted Grand Mart’s attorney about the non-appearance (the “meet and confer” requirement for a no-show).

If the court grants Sarah’s motion, it will order Mr. Thompson to appear for a rescheduled deposition and for Grand Mart to produce the requested security footage and incident reports. Crucially, under subdivision (g) of the statute, the court would likely impose monetary sanctions against Grand Mart or Mr. Thompson to compensate Sarah for the wasted time and legal fees incurred in preparing for the cancelled deposition and filing the motion to compel, unless they can show substantial justification for their non-compliance. If Mr. Thompson then *still* fails to obey the court’s order, Grand Mart could face even more severe consequences, such as issue sanctions (where certain facts related to the non-compliance are deemed established against them) or even terminating sanctions (where their defense is struck entirely).

Related Statutes

• CCP § 2025.230 – Deposition of Organization; Designation of Person: This statute is directly referenced in CCP § 2025.450(a). It describes the process by which a party can notice the deposition of an organization (like a corporation or government entity) and require the organization to designate one or more individuals who are most knowledgeable about specific topics to testify on its behalf. If such a designated person fails to appear, CCP § 2025.450 applies.
• CCP § 2025.410 – Objections to Deposition Notice: Also directly referenced in CCP § 2025.450(a). This section outlines how a party may object to a deposition notice to prevent or modify the deposition. If a deponent fails to serve a *valid* objection under this section and then fails to comply, a motion to compel is appropriate.
• CCP § 2016.040 – Meet and Confer Declaration: This statute is referenced in CCP § 2025.450(b)(2) and defines the general requirement for a “meet and confer” declaration in discovery motions. It emphasizes the importance of parties attempting to resolve discovery disputes informally before seeking court intervention.
• CCP § 2023.010 et seq. – Misuse of Discovery Process; Sanctions: Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery Act, encompassing CCP § 2023.010 and subsequent sections, defines various misuses of the discovery process and outlines the types of sanctions a court can impose (monetary, issue, evidence, terminating). These sections provide the legal framework for the sanctions mentioned in CCP § 2025.450(g) and (h).
• CCP § 2025.010 et seq. – Oral Deposition Inside California: This entire chapter sets forth the general rules governing oral depositions taken within California, providing the broader context within which CCP § 2025.450 operates.

## Case Law Interpreting CCP § 2025.450

While CCP § 2025.450 is frequently applied in trial courts, appellate decisions often review the trial court’s *discretion* in granting or denying such motions and imposing sanctions, rather than offering extensive interpretation of the statute’s individual clauses. However, several cases provide guidance on its application:

• Padron v. Sup. Ct. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 443, 447-448: This case addressed the mandatory nature of sanctions under the discovery act when a motion to compel is granted. While discussing the broader sanctions framework, the court affirmed that under sections like CCP § 2025.450(g), if a motion to compel is granted, the court *shall* impose monetary sanctions unless it finds substantial justification or other circumstances making the imposition of sanctions unjust. This highlights the serious consequences of failing to comply with deposition notices. [Link to Google Scholar: Padron v. Sup. Ct.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8458117769150005527)

• Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294: This case, while primarily discussing the sufficiency of a motion to compel further responses to interrogatories, reiterates the fundamental importance of the “meet and confer” requirement found in CCP § 2016.040 (which is directly referenced in CCP § 2025.450(b)(2)). The court emphasized that a genuine and good faith effort to informally resolve a discovery dispute is a prerequisite to filing a motion to compel, highlighting that mere perfunctory attempts are insufficient. This principle directly applies to the requirements for a motion to compel a deposition under CCP § 2025.450. [Link to Google Scholar: Clement v. Alegre](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4835619195027588828)

These cases underscore the procedural requirements and the seriousness of non-compliance under the California Civil Discovery Act, demonstrating how courts enforce the provisions of CCP § 2025.450.

Why CCP § 2025.450 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

CCP § 2025.450 is incredibly important in California personal injury litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants, as depositions are often the most crucial discovery tool for uncovering facts, establishing liability, and assessing damages.

For a plaintiff’s attorney, this statute is a vital enforcement mechanism. Imagine a scenario where a plaintiff is injured in a car accident, and the defendant driver refuses to appear for their deposition, or a corporate defendant (e.g., a trucking company) fails to produce crucial vehicle maintenance logs or driver employment records after being noticed for a deposition. Without CCP § 2025.450, the plaintiff’s case could be severely hampered, as they might be unable to gather essential evidence about how the accident occurred, the extent of the defendant’s negligence, or the responsible parties. This statute empowers the plaintiff to compel that critical testimony and documentation, ensuring their ability to build a strong case.

For defense attorneys, while often on the receiving end of such motions, the statute also ensures a fair process. If a plaintiff or a key witness fails to appear for a deposition requested by the defense (e.g., to gather information about the plaintiff’s injuries, medical history, or lost wages), the defense can use CCP § 2025.450 to compel their attendance. This allows the defense to gather information necessary for evaluating the claim, preparing a defense, or negotiating a fair settlement. The “good cause” requirement ensures that requests are justified, and the “meet and confer” rule encourages efficiency.

The provisions regarding electronically stored information (ESI) are increasingly relevant in personal injury cases. Dashcam footage, vehicle black box data, cell phone records, text messages, or social media posts can all be critical evidence. If a party withholds such ESI, CCP § 2025.450 provides the means to compel its production, with specific guidance on addressing accessibility issues and imposing limitations to prevent undue burden. The sanctions outlined in the statute also serve as a powerful deterrent against discovery abuse, ensuring that parties comply with their obligations and that those who obstruct the process face consequences.

In essence, CCP § 2025.450 is a cornerstone of effective personal injury litigation, ensuring that parties cannot unilaterally impede the discovery process, thereby promoting transparency, fairness, and the efficient resolution of disputes.