Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 19-01114589, Date: 2022-11-01 Tentative Ruling
(1) Motion for Protective Order (2) Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) (3) CMC
Tentative Ruling: (1) Motion for Protective Order
Plaintiff Miguel Real’s motion for protective order is denied.
Preliminarily, Plaintiff’s counsel must comply with the Rules of Court regarding formatting for motion papers CRC 3.1110 through 3.1116. The Court had previously admonished counsel regarding improper line spacing and now admonishes counsel regarding the failure to include a table of authorities and table of contents. Any future violations of these rules may result in outright denial of the request.
The necessity for a protective order has not been shown. As stated in the Court’s 7-12-22 Minute Order and restated herein, counsel for both parties are reminded to abide by all applicable rules of civility and professionalism, such as Orange County Bar Association’s Civility Guidelines or The California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism. The Court expects that these guidelines be followed by both counsel in all respects, particularly with respect to the setting [including time and place] and conduct of depositions.
Since the Court issued the 7-12-22 Order, it appears that counsel have taken active steps towards civility and the Court encourages the parties to continue doing so.
Counsel are reminded that if the parties’ counsel are unable to work together in a professional and productive manner, the Court may set an OSC: re sanctions against either on or both counsel.
All requests for monetary sanctions are denied.
Moving Party to give notice.
(2) Motion to Compel PMK Depo, etc.
Plaintiff Miguel Real’s motion to compel Defendant’s PMK and custodian of records deposition, etc. is denied.
Preliminarily, Plaintiff’s counsel must comply with the Rules of Court regarding formatting for motion papers CRC 3.1110 through 3.1116. The Court had previously admonished counsel regarding improper line spacing and now admonishes counsel regarding the failure to include a table of authorities and table of contents. Any future violations of these rules may result in outright denial of the request.
The Court having read the moving, opposing and reply it appears that the deposition of Diane Bainbridge was set to occur on 9-28-22. Whether or not Ms. Bainbridge has been properly designated has not been established because at the time the motion and all supporting papers were filed, the deposition had not taken place. If Ms. Bainbridge’s deposition testimony reveals that she is not the proper person designated by Defendant, Plaintiff will have to file the proper motion.
As to the issue of ordering a sequence of depositions, the request is denied. As stated in the Court’s 7-12-22 Minute Order and restated herein, counsel for both parties are reminded to abide by all applicable rules of civility and professionalism, such as Orange County Bar Association’s Civility Guidelines or The California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Professionalism. The Court expects that these guidelines be followed by both counsel in all respects, particularly with respect to the setting [including time and place] and conduct of depositions.
Since the Court issued the 7-12-22 Order, it appears that counsel have taken active steps towards civility and the Court encourages the parties to continue doing so.
Counsel are reminded that if the parties’ counsel are unable to work together in a professional and productive manner, the Court may set an OSC: re sanctions against either on or both counsel.
All requests for monetary sanctions are denied.
Moving Party to give notice.