Case Number: BC615743 Hearing Date: March 22, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Adam D. Rodgers,

Plaintiff,

v.

Darrin Kelly JOhnson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC615743

Hearing Date: March 22, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Plaintiff’S motion for order compelling Defendant’s attendance and testimony at deposition

Plaintiff Adam D. Rodgers (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendant Darrin Kelly Johnson (“Defendant”) to submit to his deposition and produce documents at said deposition. The hearing on the motion was originally set for March 2, 2018. However, the moving party rescheduled the hearing on the motion to March 22, 2018. Court staff called the moving party on March 19, 2018 to confirm that this motion is moving forward. During this phone call, Counsel for the moving party indicated that Defendant’s deposition has been held, but that Defendant did not produce the documents requested in the subpoena for deposition. Counsel stated that the motion would be moving forward to request that Defendant be compelled to produce the documents requested in the subpoena.

Neither party has filed any supplemental briefing to identify what items remain at issue. The issue of compelling Defendants’ attendance at deposition is moot as the deposition has already taken place. To the extent that the issue of compelling document production is outstanding, the motion is denied without prejudice. The moving party has not filed any supplemental briefing since Defendant’s deposition to provide an update as to what items Defendant produced at the deposition and what specific items remain outstanding. Nor has the moving party submitted any transcripts of Defendant’s deposition memorializing any discussions in which the parties engaged at the deposition with regard to the items that remain outstanding or any agreement that the parties reached as to the production of outstanding items. Without such supplemental briefing, the Court is not in a position to rule on any documents that Defendant may not have produced at the deposition.

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to compel the production of documents that were not produced at the deposition, then Plaintiff must bring a new motion and identify clearly which documents Defendant failed to produce

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s deposition and to compel Defendant to produce documents at the deposition is denied without prejudice. Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED: March 22, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court