Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 20-01175201, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Smith    v.   Huynh


Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)


Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Plaintiff Christopher Stimson, Jr.’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Ryan Lawrence and request for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.


First, Plaintiff has failed to file any proof of service with this motion.  Thus, the court is unable to determine whether service of the motion and supporting documents was proper or timely. 


Second, the motion is also not accompanied by a Separate Statement. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a)

(5) requires that a motion to compel the production of documents at a deposition “be accompanied by a separate statement.”


Rule 3.1345(b) states: “Separate statement not required. A separate statement is not required under the following circumstances: (1) When no response has been provided to the request for discovery.”


Here, the Motion seeks to compel the production of documents, in addition to Defendant’s personal appearance, at deposition and Rule 3.1345(a)(5) specifically states a separate statement is required for such a motion.  Further, subsection (b)(1) does not apply as Defendant objected to the deposition notice.


As such, the Court finds the Motion is also procedurally inadequate as a separate statement was not filed.


Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.


Moving Party to give notice.