Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 21STCV18469, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: April 26, 2024

Case Name: (1) Schulz v. Pitzer College, et al.

(2) Schulz v. Pitzer College, et al.

Case No.: (1) 21STCV18469

(2) 21STCV18241

Matter: Motions to Compel Deposition (2x)

Moving Party: Defendant Pitzer College

Responding Party: Plaintiff Brendan Schulz

Ruling: The Motions are granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

21STCV18469 and 21STCV18241 are related cases.

In 21STCV18241, Plaintiff Brendan Schulz filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants Pitzer College (“Pitzer”), Janet Schwing, Nigel Boyle, and Melvin Oliver for (1) violation of the Unruh Act, (2) attempted extortion, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) breach of contract, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (6) intentional misrepresentation, (7) false promise, (8) willful misconduct, (9) reckless misconduct, and (10) concealment. Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that Pitzer failed to accommodate him as a student after he suffered a concussion because Plaintiff is a Jew.

In 21STCV18469, Schulz filed a First Amended Complaint against Pitzer for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) willful misconduct.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant fired/did not rehire him as a Resident Assistant because he is a Jew.  

In both cases, Defendant Pitzer College now seeks to compel the deposition of Plaintiff.  Defendant contends that Plaintiff refuses to provide a date he is available.  

Plaintiff contends that his health has precluded a deposition and that he is willing to appear for a deposition when his health improves.  Plaintiff indicates that “[s]ince November of 2023, [he] has experienced two severe health issues, one of them potentially terminal. These health issues have resulted in the plaintiff seeking medical treatment from physicians in Tunisia, Rwanda, Italy, France, and the United States.”

Plaintiff initially asked for an extension on February 22, 2024, and since then, no deposition has taken place.  

Plaintiff’s depositions cannot be delayed indefinitely.  Plaintiff must remember that he chose to pursue these lawsuits and that they are currently set for trial on November 4, 2024.  Further, little specificity has been provided to the Court as to Plaintiff’s conditions and the timeline for treatment.

The Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will require that the depositions take place within 60 days.  The Motions to Compel are granted.  The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.