Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV02915, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: January 22, 2025

Case Name: Burgett v. Shadow Wolf Energy, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV21735

Matter: Motion to Compel Depositions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Tom Burgett

Responding Party: Defendant Shadow Wolf Energy, LLC

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

This is an employment action.  Plaintiff Tom Burgett now seeks to compel the depositions of Arshad Assofi and Adam Ohnstad.  Plaintiff asserts that “(1) Assofi is an owner, officer, director and managing agent of Defendant Shadow Wolf Energy who participated in the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment; [and] (2) Ohnstad is a high-level agent of Defendant Shadow Wolf Energy who verified the company’s discovery responses . . . .”

Defendant Shadow Wolf Energy, LLC argues that Plaintiff failed to show that either Assofi or Ohnstad were properly served with a deposition notice or subpoena.  

Defendant admits that it received and objected to the notice on Assofi as follows: “fails to identify the location of the deposition other than ‘via remote appearance.’ Defendant further objects that the Plaintiff unilaterally set the deposition for February 9, 2023, without conferring with any other party or counsel, and without agreement. Defendant and Counsel for Defendant are unavailable on that date. Defendant SWE further objects that the notice is insufficient in that it purports to set the deposition on ten (10) days’ notice, served on January 30, 2023 by UPS.”

These objections mostly lack merit given that the deposition notice was served a year ago—a reasonable person would simply negotiate a new deposition date and not obstruct discovery for twelve months.  In fact, a new date was being discussed and then defense counsel apparently went radio silent.    

Defendant apparently continues to question the existence of a notice or subpoena on Ohnstad.  This too is somewhat unreasonable.  If this dispute arose one year ago, again, a reasonable lawyer would simply meet and confer and, if need be, request a new notice.  There is no evidence that Plaintiff has resisted this.  

Simply put, nothing justifies the fact that Defendant’s agents could not be deposed for one year.

The Court will make this simple.  Defense counsel is to accept a notice for Ohnstad at the Motion hearing, and both depositions are to be completed by February 28, 2025.  

The Motion is granted.  The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

Moving party to give notice.