LINE: 2 17-CIV-04920 DONALD KUNG VS. YVONNE LAU, ET AL.

DONALD KUNG YVONNE LAU
LAWRENCE S. VIOLA ROBERT J. BUCCIERI

MOTION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, AND TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Testimony and Production of Documents is GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2025.450(a). It is uncontested that Plaintiff has properly served a deposition subpoena that included a request for production of documents on Defendant, and that Defendant has not complied with the subpoena. Given the additional month that has already been afforded to Defendant, and that she has not established good cause for a protective order, the Motion to Compel is GRANTED.

Defendant is ordered to produce all documents requested in the Request for Production of Documents Set 1 and the Amended Deposition Notice by no later than Monday, July 1, 2019. Defendant is also ordered to appear for deposition at the Viola Law Firm on Tuesday, July 9, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.

Discovery deadlines are modified as follows, pursuant to agreement of the parties:

The close of non-expert discovery shall be Friday, July 19, 2019; (2) The deadline for non-expert discovery motions shall be Tuesday, July 30, 2019; (3) The close of expert discovery shall be Friday, July 1-9, 2019, and (4) The deadline for expert discovery motions shall be Tuesday, July 30, 201

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.

June 21, 2019 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 4 Judge: HONORABLE SUSAN GREENBERG, Department 03 ________________________________________________________________________ 9:00 LINE: 3 17-CIV-04920 DONALD KUNG VS. YVONNE LAU, ET AL.

DONALD KUNG YVONNE LAU
LAWRENCE S. VIOLA ROBERT J. BUCCIERI

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY YVONNE LAU TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections are OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Defendant has not established good cause pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2025.420. In her Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant indicated that, (1) her medical care team thought it was in her best interest to “postpone stressful, prolonged legal proceedings, until a course of treatment has been established,” (2) that she was in the process of hiring an assistant to help search documents to respond to the request for production, and (3) she was willing to participate in a deposition when medically able.

In the intervening month, Defendant has not offered any evidence updating her medical status, has not responded to document requests, has not scheduled an agreeable deposition date or proposed a timeline during which she may be able to participate, has not stipulated to a physical and mental examination as requested by Plaintiff, and has not proposed accommodations that may allow her to participate in a deposition. Defendant has also not provided any update via a Reply. The letter that Defendant provide in May from her doctor indicated that prolonged stressful legal proceedings would not be in her best interest at that time, but suggested that a course of treatment could be established, and did not indicate that no accommodations could be made to protect Defendant’s health so that she could participate in discovery. On these facts, the limited evidence that Defendant offered regarding her medical status is not sufficient to establish good cause pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Section 2025.420(b) that discovery should be delayed any further. If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.