Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV35348, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV35348    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff Jane Doe (Plaintiff) moves to compel Defendant Ruben Flores (Defendant) to appear for deposition and produce requested documents at the deposition.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies. 

Preliminarily, the Court notes Plaintiff’s notice of motion is procedurally defective per Code of Civil Procedure section 1010 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110, subdivision (a).  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010 [“the notice of a motion…must state…the grounds upon which it will be made”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110, subd. (a) [“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order”].)  Here, the notice fails to cite to any statutory authority in support of the motion.   

Generally, the Court cannot grant different relief than stated in the notice of motion.  (People v. American Surety Insurance Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 719, 726.)  Notwithstanding, “[a]n omission in the notice may be overlooked if the supporting papers make clear the grounds for the relief sought.”  (Luxury Asset Lending, LLC v. Philadelphia Television Network, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 894, 909.) 

In this instance, however, Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities fails to make clear the statutory basis for the relief sought.  In particular, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.270 and 2031.310 which seem to misplaced and unconnected to the relief sought which is to compel Defendant’s deposition and for Defendant to produce the documents attendant to the deposition. 

Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.