Judge: Maren Nelson, Case: 23STCV02085, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02085    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

QUANTGENE, INC., et al.

            vs.

SEBASTIAN DONOVAN, et al.

             Defendants’ motion for a protective order is DENIED.

            On 1/31/2023, Plaintiffs Sebastian Donovan and Arconex (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Quantgene, Inc. and Johannes Bhakdi (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.

            On 3/3/2022, Cross-Complainants Quantgene, Inc. and Johannes Bhakdi filed a cross-complaint (XC) against Cross-Defendants Sebastian Donovan and Arconex, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) false promise; (4) intentional misrepresentation; (5) concealment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) conversion; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) intentional interference with contractual relations; and (10) unfair business practices.

            Now, Defendants seek a protective order to adjourn the deposition of the person most qualified (PMK) of Defendant Quantgene.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that good cause exists to adjourn the PMK deposition currently scheduled for 8/10/23 to 9/15/2023, because Defendants’ counsel is withdrawing. They seek to adjourn the deposition for a short period of time until after replacement counsel has been retained and has received an opportunity to become familiar with the case and meet with the corporate representative(s) for Quantgene Inc. in preparation for this deposition.

            As a preliminary matter, the relief being sought is moot given that this motion is being heard on 9/25/2023, and the deposition in question was scheduled for 8/10/2023.

            Second, Defendants’ motion turns on the withdrawal of counsel, and the need for new counsel to become acquainted with the facts of the case. However, notices of substitution of counsel were filed on 8/25/2023. Accordingly, by the time of this hearing, counsel will have had a month to acquaint themselves with the facts of the case. The Court finds no good cause to delay deposition any further.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for a protective order is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.