16-CIV-02978 DIANA DICKSON VS. LORI DICKSON, ET AL.

DIANA DICKSON LORI DICKSON
ALEXANDRA M. BANIS GRANT H. BAKER

MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL LORI DICKSON TO ATTEND AND TESTIFY AT DEPOSITION AND TO IMPOSE MONETARY SANCTIONS BY DIANA DICKSON TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Diana Dickson’s Motion to Compel Defendant Lori Dickson to Attend and Testify at Deposition, and for Sanctions, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Diana Dickson’s right to request, as the April 2019 trial date approaches, some type of evidentiary exclusion order, such as an order excluding Lori Dickson’s testimony at trial, in the event she cannot and/or does not appear for deposition on a date reasonably in advance of the April trial date.

Without belaboring all the details, Plaintiff Diana Dickson contends that for the past eight months (since February 2018), she has been attempting to depose Defendant Lori Dickson, who has repeatedly delayed/obstructed the deposition in bad faith. Lori Dickson (age 80), conversely, contends there has been no bad faith. She offers various explanations as to why the many previously-noticed deposition dates had to be re-scheduled and explains that her present poor health, which is supported by doctor’s notes, precludes a deposition at this time and renders her unable to sit for a deposition for at least another six months. Based on her health, Lori Dickson recently obtained an Order continuing the scheduled November 2018 trial date (which was already once continued) to April 2019. The most recent doctor’s note indicates, however, that Lori Dickson’s health will not enable a deposition even by the April 2019 trial date.

While the Court is not in a position to question the legitimacy of the doctor’s notes or the seriousness of Lori Dickson’s current condition, the Court has concerns about the continued delay of Lori Dickson’s deposition and the related delay in the trial date. The allegation of intentional delay dating back to February 2018 appears to have some support. Nonetheless, giving Lori Dickson and her counsel the benefit of the doubt, the motion is DENIED at this time. However, the Court recognizes the prejudice that this delay continues to cause. It is unclear that Lori Dickson needs to testify at trial in this partition action. Without deciding the issue, the Court notes that if Lori Dickson is not deposed on a date reasonably in advance of the April trial date, an order precluding her testimony at trial may become appropriate.

All requests for sanctions are DENIED. Again, giving both parties the benefit of the doubt, the Court finds each party acted with substantial justification and that sanctions are not warranted at this time.

Lori Dickson’s Request for Judicial Notice of the Court’s October 18, 2018 Tentative Ruling is DENIED on grounds that a tentative ruling is not relevant after a formal Order issues. However, as noted, the Court is aware that the trial date was continued to April 29, 2019. 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.