Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20VECV00828, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

Case Number: 20VECV00828    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: T

TENTATIVE RULING

WEISCHADLE V AMIRGHOLAMI 2/17/2023

20VECV00828

Ms. Weischadle is correct that on 2/9/2023 the court directed defense counsel to provide her with copies of depositions 1 and 2. Counsel agreed that he would do so. Ms. Weischadle is correct that on 2/9/2023 the court directed defense counsel to provide notice of 2/9/2023 hearing (as reflected in the 2/9/2023 minutes).  There is no proof of service of notice of ruling in the court’s file.  There is no exhibit attached to the reply papers showing that notice of ruling was given to plaintiff.  There is nothing in the reply indicating the depositions were provided.

The court requests that at the 2/17/2023 hearing, the defendants provide the court with the total time of all depositions taken of Ms. Weischadle in keeping with the 7-hour cumulative limit in CCP section 2025.290. 

If it is established that Ms. Weischadle was timely given notice of the 2/9/2023 hearing and she was timely provided the 2 depositions, then the court’s tentative ruling is as follows:

Motion to Compel Deposition of the Plaintiff: GRANTED.  Plaintiff is to produce herself for deposition on a business date and time to be agreed upon but no later than 2/24/2023 and to start no later than 9:30 a.m., unless agreed to in writing by both sides.  The deposition is to be taken at a local U.S. Legal office.  She is ordered to produce all documents requested by the deposition notice.

The court denies the defendants’ request for evidence sanctions made for the first time in the reply papers.

Monetary sanctions are awarded against Gloria Weischadle in the sum of $830.00 pursuant to CCP section 2025.480(f) and 2025.450(c)(1) for discovery abuse because of her failure to submit to the completion of her deposition in a timely manner without substantial justification.  It is not proper justification to refuse to attend a deposition because she has purportedly not seen her previous depositions or the deposition of Dr. Rodriguez.  It is not proper justification to refuse to attend her deposition because the defendant “refused” to provide copies of the transcripts to Ms. Weischadle for review, corrections, and signature.  It is not proper justification to refuse to attend a deposition because she is awaiting her own medical records.  She had no need for defense counsel to notify plaintiff, again, the contact information for the reporter as she received several emails directly from the court reporter.  Sanctions are payable by 3/17/2023 by check or money order to the Client Trust Account of Doyle Schafer McMahon, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620.