2017-00207395-CU-PO
Deloris McDonald vs. Eskaton Properties Incorporated
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) PMK Re: Call Lights/Call Button System 2)
Filed By: Jay, Daniel
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK re Call Lights/Call Button System is unopposed and is granted.
Eskaton has filed a non-opposition to the motion to compel the depositions.
The depositions were initially noticed in 2018 without prior consultation as to dates. Plaintiffs state that defendants never provided alternative dates for the depositions. In response to the motion, Defendants state that due to counsel’s preparation for the March 12 trial in the case of Lovenstein vs. Eskaton Fountainwood Lodge (Case No. 2012-00135467) also pending in this court, no deposition dates could be provided to plaintiffs. The Court is aware that the Lovenstein case has involved extensive law and motion practice and the taking of numerous depositions prior to the upcoming trial date. Defendant does not oppose the depositions of the witnesses and states that dates will be provided prior to the time of the hearing on this motion. In Reply, plaintiffs state that no dates have been given as of the filing of the Reply.
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. CCP 2025.450
If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document…that is specified in the deposition notice… the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. CCP 2025.480(a).
The motion to compel production of documents at deposition is denied as premature because the depositions have not yet occurred. Thus, the requirements of 2025.450 have not yet been met because no witness has failed to appear for an examination nor failed to produce documents. A party may challenge the demand for production of
documents in a notice of deposition on the basis of burdensomeness, irrelevance or privilege either by seeking a protective order or by raising these grounds at the deposition, thereby requiring a motion to compel under CCP 2025.480.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer to set up a date, time and place for the deposition to occur within the next 30 days.
Sanctions are denied because the taking of the depositions was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery (CCP
2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)) authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Item 3 2017-00207395-CU-PO
Deloris McDonald vs. Eskaton Properties Incorporated
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) PMK Re: Training/In-Service Training of Emp. 2)
Filed By: Jay, Daniel
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK re Training/In Service Training of Employees is unopposed and is granted.
Eskaton has filed a non-opposition to the motion.
The depositions were initially noticed in 2018 but plaintiffs state the defendants never provided alternative dates for the depositions that had been set without prior meet and confer as to acceptable dates. Defendants state that due to the preparation for the Loventstein trial in this court which has involved extensive law and motion practice, the taking of 40 depositions prior to the upcoming trial, as well as filing motions in limine, which has been undertaken by every attorney in the office as well as attorneys from other branches, it has been unable to provide any dates for the depositions sought in this case. Defendant states that dates will be provided prior to the time of the hearing on this 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 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. CCP 2025.450
If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document…that is specified in the deposition notice… the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. CCP 2025.480(a).
The motion to compel production of documents at deposition is denied as premature because the depositions have not yet occurred. Thus, the requirements of 2025.450 have not yet been met because no witness has failed to appear for an examination nor failed to produce documents. A party may challenge the demand for production of documents in a notice of deposition on the basis of burdensomeness, irrelevance or privilege either by seeking a protective order or by raising these grounds at the deposition, thereby requiring a motion to compel under CCP 2025.480.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer to set up a date, time and place for the deposition to occur within the next 30 days.
Sanctions are denied because the taking of the depositions was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery (CCP
2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)) authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Item 4 2017-00207395-CU-PO
Deloris McDonald vs. Eskaton Properties Incorporated
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel 1) PMK Re: Staffing/Rug Acuity 2) Production
Filed By: Jay, Daniel
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK re Staffing/Rug activity is unopposed and is granted.
Eskaton has filed a non-opposition to the motion.
The depositions were initially noticed in 2018 without prior consultation as to dates. Plaintiffs state that defendants never provided alternative dates for the depositions. In response to the motion, Defendants state that due to counsel’s preparation for the March 12 trial in the case of Lovenstein vs. Eskaton Fountainwood Lodge (Case No. 2012-00135467) also pending in this court, no deposition dates have yet been given to plaintiffs. The Court is aware that the Lovenstein case has involved extensive law and motion practice and the taking of numerous depositions prior to the upcoming trial date. Defendant does not oppose the depositions of the witnesses and states that dates will be provided prior to the time of the hearing on this motion. In Reply, plaintiffs
state no dates have yet been provided.
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. CCP 2025.450
If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document…that is specified in the deposition notice… the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. CCP 2025.480(a).
The motion to compel production of documents at deposition is denied as premature because the depositions have not yet occurred. Thus, the requirements of 2025.450 have not yet been met because no witness has failed to appear for an examination nor failed to produce documents. A party may challenge the demand for production of documents in a notice of deposition on the basis of burdensomeness, irrelevance or privilege either by seeking a protective order or by raising these grounds at the deposition, thereby requiring a motion to compel under CCP 2025.480.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer to set up a date, time and place for the deposition to occur within the next 30 days.
Sanctions are denied because the taking of the depositions was not opposed. Although CRC 3.1348(a) purports to authorize sanctions if a motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery (CCP
2030.290(c), 2031.300(c)) authorize sanctions only if the motion was unsuccessfully made or opposed. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v Firmaterr Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355. However, repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 481.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.
Link to this page