Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV25741, Date: 2025-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25741    Hearing Date: January 24, 2025    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      January 24, 2025                                         TRIAL DATE:  June 3, 2025

CASE:                         Nandini Mehta v. Netflix, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                      21STCV25741

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION

MOTION RE: APPLICATION UNDER CAL. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 473 PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED AUGUST 21,

2024 GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS;

I.          INTRODUCTION

On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff Nandini Mehta filed this employment action against Defendants, Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”), and David B. McLean (“McLean”), arising from her alleged wrongful termination from employment with Netflix. 

Two matters are pending before the court: (1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition; and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion Re: Application Under Cal. Code of Civil Procedure 473 Plaintiff’s Application to Set Aside the Order Dated August 21, 2024 Granting Defendants’ Request for Sanctions.  The court addresses them in turn.

On January 23, 2025, one day before the hearing, Defendants notified the court they were withdrawing their motion to compel.

II.        MOTION RE: 473 RELIEF

A.    Relevant Background

On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set Four.  Defendants filed timely an opposition.  

            On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff’s then counsel of record informed Defendants that Plaintiff planned to change of counsel.  On June 20, 2024—the same day as her deadline to file a reply brief in support of her motion to compel further responses—Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to continue the trial date and all related dates by 45 days.  Neither Plaintiff nor her former counsel requested an extension of time to file a reply brief.

On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s former counsel moved to be relieved as counsel of record.  The motion was granted on July 23, 2024.  Plaintiff was served with the order relieving counsel.

On August 21, 2024, the court heard Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to RFP, Set Four.  The court denied Plaintiff’s motion and issued sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1,000.  Defendants served Plaintiff with the court’s August 21, 2024 order.

            On September 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion to be relieved from the court’s August 21, 2024, order.  Plaintiff filed the motion in pro per.

            On January 10, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition.

            No reply had been filed at the time of the hearing.

B.     Discussion

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient.  A motion under Section 473(b) requires that it be accompanied by a copy of the pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)  Here, Plaintiff has not included a copy of the proposed reply brief or any other such pleading.  This alone is sufficient grounds to deny Plaintiff’s motion.

C.     Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for § 473 Relief is DENIED.

Defendants to give notice.

IV.       DISPOSITIONS

Plaintiff’s Motion for § 473 Relief is DENIED.  Defendants to give notice.

Dated:   January 24, 2025