18-CIV-05455 CITY OF PACIFICA VS. MILLARD W. TONG, ET AL.

CITY OF PACIFICA MILLARD W. TONG
ALBERT TONG PRO/PER

MOTION TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT MILLARD TONG BY CITY OF PACIFICA TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff City of Pacifica (“Plaintiff”) to Compel Attendance and Production of Documents to Defendant Millard Tong (“Defendant”), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

The Motion to Compel Defendant’s Deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiff shows that it properly noticed Defendant’s deposition for December 12, 2019, and Defendant failed to appear. Defendant contends that he thought the deposition was scheduled for December 13, 2019, and did not receive the Notice of Deposition for December 12, 2019. However, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Defendant an email on December 12, 2019 stating Defendant failure to appear for deposition that day. Defendant offers no explanation why he did not contact Plaintiff in response if Defendant believed the deposition was scheduled for December 13, 2019.

As to Defendant’s argument that discovery is now closed, Defendant mistakenly relies on the mediation date of January 29, 2020 to argue that discovery closed 30 days prior to that date. C.C.P. section 2024.020(a) provides for discovery to be completed 30 days “before the date initially set for the trial of the action.” A mediation date is not a trial date.

The Motion to Compel Production of the Documents in the Deposition Notice is DENIED. Plaintiff has not set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of these documents. (See C.C.P. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to appear for deposition on February 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at the law offices of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, located at 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, California. Defendant is not required to produce any documents requested in the deposition notice though.

Plaintiff’s Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED