Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Qualified

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Qualified

TONY WATSON, ET AL. VS CAMI AUTOMOTIVE, INC, ET AL.

Palram Americas, Inc., supra, 235 CA4th at 280-282, 185 CR3d at 43-44—by failing to address CCP § 1989 and its applicability to CCP § 2025.230 on appeal, party forfeited argument that trial court lacked power to compel deposition of entity's nonresident person most knowledgeable] (b) [8:631.2] Comment: Where the corporation has a witness in California who could make the necessary investigation and testify to that information known to the corporation, the corporation could produce that witness in California.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

LILIA RIOS, ET AL. VS EDGAR G. VILLAMARIN

Thus, the motion to compel deposition, motion to compel further request for admissions, and motion to compel further form interrogatories should be granted in their entirety. Alternatively, if the Court wishes to provide Defendant further opportunity to provide arguments on the merits after his criminal trial has ended, the Court should continue the matters to a further date and request substantive supplemental briefing from Defendant regarding the instant motions.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

CORA SUTTLES VS M'DEARS BAKERY & BRISTOL, LLC, AN ENTITY, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On April 12, 2019, Plaintiff Cora Suttles (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants M’Dears Bakery & Bistro, LLC, Tiffany Shug, Kelton Shug, and Marissa Shug.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

CITY OF COSTA MESA VS. CASA CAPRI, LLC

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) filed by Plaintiffs City of Costa Mesa and People of the State of California The motion of plaintiffs City of Costa Mesa and the People of the State of California for an order compelling non-party Via Lido Drugs to comply with a subpoena for testimony and production of documents and imposing a monetary sanction of $5287.50 against this non-party and its attorneys of record is denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

FRANCISCA PANTIG VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GRAY LINE A, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On December 31, 2018, Plaintiff Francisca Pantig (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours & Carters, Inc. (erroneously named as Southern California Gray Line A and Coach USA Rail North America, LLC) and Charles White (“Defendant White”) (collectively “Defendants”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

MARTINEZ VS. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition in person or remote within the next thirty (30) days. Defendant to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Legal Standard for a Motion to Compel Deposition Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance A. Legal Standard The service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JAIME ALFARO, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant FCA US LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable with production of documents and requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argues that Defendant refused to produce a PMK for the deposition noticed for January 22, 2020, only provided one alternative date, and refuse to produce documents at the deposition as set forth in the notice of deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

GOD VS 4106 ROSEWOOD CORPORATION

Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance A. Legal Standard The service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SONIA LAJAS VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Legal Standard for a Motion to Compel Deposition Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

CHERITTA SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JULIE MATTHEWS, AN INDIVIDUAL

Motion to Compel Deposition Meet and Confer A motion to compel deposition “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 25, 2020

MELINDA T. AHDOOT VS GARRI CHERNYAVSKIY

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendants/Cross-Complainants is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HESPER NATALE, ET AL V. TERI HARMON-PERRY, SKY RIVER, INC., ET AL

Natale now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, to compel deposition testimony of Defendants William Wolkoff (“Wolkoff”) and Teri Harmon-Perry (“Harmon- Perry”) (collectively “Defendants”). Natale’s notice of motion further requests monetary sanctions. Defendants oppose the motion. Natale first noticed the depositions of Wolkoff and Harmon-Perry on September 4, 2019, to take place on October 4, 2019. (Karen Decl., ¶ 2; Exh. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

RAMIREZ VS L J T FLOWERS

Tentative ruling for September 18, 2020 on Motion to Compel Deposition with Production of Documents The court denies Defendant LJT Flowers, Inc.'s motion to compel an in-person deposition, but grants, in part, the motion to produce documents in connection with a remote deposition, subject to the court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to quash, also heard on this date. No sanctions are awarded. I think the court should deny the motion and have the parties confer over a date for a video deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SMARTMED V. FIRSTCHOICE MEDICAL

Motion: By Plaintiff SmartMed to Compel Deposition of Defendant Vantage’s Person Most Knowledgeable By Plaintiff SmartMed to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions No.’s 1-4 (Set One), Form Interrogatory 17.1, Request for Production of Documents No.’s 143-148 (Set Five), and Special Interrogatories No.’s 6-8 (Set Two) Tentative Ruling: The motion to compel the deposition of defendant Vantage’s person most knowledgeable was withdrawn the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

.: 18SMCV00212 Hearing Date: September 18, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motionS to compel deposition of PLAINTIFFS’ PMK BACKGROUND On November 9, 2018, Plaintiffs Hero Dogs Season One LLC (“Hero Dogs”) and Nuriya Entertainment LLC (“Nuriya”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the original complaint against Defendants Dean A. Avedon (“Avedon”), Bemel, Ross & Avedon, LLP (“Bemel”), David Beitchman (“Beitchman”), and Beitchman & Zekian a Professional Law Corporation (“Beitchman & Zekian”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GUADALUPE MATA HUANTE VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

A at p. 3); 4.0 hours ($1,200) on April 6, 2020, prepare a motion to compel deposition of GM’s person most knowledgeable, which this court denied (Mikhov Decl. Exh. A at p. 4.); 5.9 hours ($1,180) on June 12 and 13, 2020, to oppose GM’s demurrer and motion to strike, which were template operations copied from other lawsuits (Mikhov Decl. Exh. A at p. 5); 1 hour ($250) billed on September 4, 2019, to prepare for an attend a GM PMK deposition that GM objected to and noticed it would not attend.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BENITO GIACALONE VS FAISAL BIN AZIZ SAUD, ET AL.

Benito Giacalone CASE NUMBER: 19STCP03650 MOTION: Motion to compel deposition of Faisal Bin Aziz Saud Motion to Deem Request For Admissions Admitted HEARING DATE: 9/17/2020 Background & Discovery Dispute On July 26, 2019, the Labor Commissioner issued a Notice of Order, Decision, or Award (the “Award”) in favor of Giacalone in the amount of $123,311.99. (Engelhardt Decl. ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

JEFFREY A SLOTT, INDIVIDUALLY VS AHMET JOHN BEDIZEL, INDIVIDUALLY

In opposition, Plaintiff notes he has filed his own motion to compel deposition as Plaintiff has not been able to set a deposition date and Defendant has refused to confirm his willingness to attend. If Defendant is seeking a protective order for after the deposition, Defendant has not shown good cause.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TANIA OLVERA, ET AL. VS RAY FISH, ET AL.

A party may file a motion to compel deposition upon a non-appearance of the noticed party. “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection … fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it … the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony…” (Code Civ. Proc., §2025.450, subd. (a).) Plaintiff Gutierrez submitted no opposition to the motion. The motion is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

MARHNAZ RAD ET AL VS SALOME L SHEK ET AL

Shek (1) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set 1 (2) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set 1 (3) Motion to Compel Defendant Shek’s Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set 1 (4) Motion to Deem the Truth of Facts in Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set 1 Admitted (5) Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Shek The court considered the moving, opposition, reply, supplemental opposition, and supplemental reply papers.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MCCULLOUGH VS. ZHANG

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) Tentative Ruling: Defendants Yuanjing Zhang and Duanjin Zheng’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff Jo Ann McCullough is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $519.00 against Plaintiff and her counsel is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

FAITH MORGAN VS SHIRLEY SCHYMAN ET AL

This is a motion to compel deposition by a deponent who failed to appear for deposition; this is not a motion to compel further deposition answers from a deponent who already sat for deposition. Section 2025.480 applies when the deponent has already sat for deposition, and is roughly analogous to a motion to compel further written discovery responses. Here, Goalwin has not sat for deposition, and therefore, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 is the proper grounds for this motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

SACRAMENTO CITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES

The trial court found that the EIR certification was adequate and denied petitioner’s motion to compel deposition of Mr. Lauricella. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the EIR was inadequate in some respects. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to depose Mr. Lauricella. In support of deposition, petitioner furnished a declaration from its attorney who spoke with Mr. Lauricella.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 51     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.