Judge: Glenn R. Salter, Case: 20-1158188, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion of the defendant for a protective order to prevent the taking of its Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED.

As an aside, the court notes the underlying motion for summary judgment was continued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (h) on the ground that further discovery was necessary.  However, it appears from the plaintiffs’ failure to take the PMK’s deposition when offered, and their failure to oppose this motion for a protective order, that the request for additional time to conduct further discovery may have been simply pretextual to gain an advantage in this action and to delay resolution of the matter on the merits.

On the day before the hearing, the plaintiffs filed an ex parte to continue the hearing to permit them to file opposition to the motion.  The attorney claims the opposition due date was not properly calendared.  That application was denied because no proposed opposition was attached.  The plaintiffs had five days week after receiving the “notice of non-opposition” to prepare formal opposition but apparently chose not to do so.

No sanctions are awarded because none were requested.

The defendant shall give notice.