What is a motion/ex parte application for order shortening time to schedule deposition?

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270(d) states:

On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a deposition....

Useful Rulings on Motion/Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Schedule Deposition

Recent Rulings on Motion/Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time to Schedule Deposition

FLEXEN V. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA

Plaintiff’s requests for terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions and a daily preemptive fine is denied. The court would have ordered defendant to pay monetary sanctions, had plaintiff asked. Defendant shall give notice. Motion to Compel PMK Deposition Plaintiff’s motion to compel PMQ deposition is denied. The deposition notice was untimely. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.270, subd. (a) [10 days prior to deposition], 2016.050, 1013, subd. (a) [5 days’ extension for service by mail]; see also Ex. 1.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

TONI LAWSON APANA ET AL VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Defendants also rely on CCP § 2025.270 (d), which states: “(d) On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a deposition or may stay its taking until the determination of a motion for a protective order under Section 2025.420.” These motions were evidently never made to preserve the right to take the depositions after counsel for defendants voluntarily did not proceed with them.

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

DEBORAH KAOUGH VS LTC RESOURCE, INC, ET AL.

Instead, Corona argues that this motion should be denied because Plaintiff failed to (1) timely serve the deposition notice and (2) comply with this motion’s meet-and-confer requirement. Both points are well-taken. First, “[a]n oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice.” (CCP § 2025.270.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS VS 8650 VILLA LA JOLLA INC

Plaintiff and several other parties appeared at the deposition, but not defendant. Wu Decl., Ex. I. SANDAG incurred $550 in costs. Wu Decl., ¶ 12. If a party fails to appear for a noticed deposition without having served a valid objection, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance. Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MAXINE HUGHES VS RESTORE HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER LLC ET A

Pursuant to CRC Rule 5.94(a), on October 8, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ ex parte application to advance hearing date on motion to compel. The hearing date for the instant motion was thus not required to be set at least sixteen court days after the granting of the ex parte application. Accordingly, the Court considers the motion on its merits.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JULIO DE LEON VS CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.

As to the motion for protective order, CCP section 2025.270 provided Defendants with a viable solution. That section states in relevant part: “On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court … may stay [a deposition’s] taking until the determination of a motion for protective order under Section 2025.420.” (CCP § 2025.270(d).) Defendants did not utilize this procedure.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

IN THE MATTER OF THE JANE J. CAMPBELL SURVIVING GRANTOR’S TRUST

Andersen’s motion to compel production without objections of documents requested at deposition is DENIED. On July 5, 2019, Todd originally served a notice of taking of deposition. (Roberts Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On July 16, 2019, Todd served a re- notice of taking depositions and request for production of documents. (Id., ¶ 3, Ex. B.) On August 2, 2019, Todd sent an amended re-notice of taking depositions and request for production of documents. (Id., ¶ 4, Ex. C.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

  • Judge

    Monique Langhorne

  • County

    Napa County, CA

MY LE MAI VS MICHELLE NGUYEN

Counsel for Nguyen is instructed to come prepared to the hearing with two dates and times Nguyen can submit to deposition within 5 days of the hearing. The date and time for Nguyen’s deposition will be placed on the record at the time of the hearing. The place of deposition will be Plaintiffs’ counsel’s office. As to Non-Party Trinh On August 2, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Allow Service of Deposition Subpoena on Kevin Trinh by Method Other than Personal Service.

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PLATINUM ROOFING, INC. V. MICHAEL STEPHENSON

(Sweatt Decl. at ¶ 3, Ex. A.) On December 18, 2018, defendant Stephenson served discovery responses. (Peretz Decl. at ¶ 6; Sweatt Decl. at ¶ 4.) On January 18, 2019, Platinum served defendant Stevenson with an Amended Notice of Deposition which also included a request to produce documents. (Peretz Decl. at Ex. 3.) The deposition was set for January 30, 2019. Stevenson did not appear and testify at deposition.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

KAYVAN SETAREH VS MONTEREY BAY VIEW ESTATES LLC ET AL

Order dated February 20, 2019, granting Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about February 20, 2019; (6) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about May 14, 2019; (7) Court's Order dated February May 14, granting Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about February 20, 2019; and (8) Plaintiff Setareh's Motion to Compel

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

KAYVAN SETAREH VS MONTEREY BAY VIEW ESTATES LLC ET AL

Order dated February 20, 2019, granting Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about February 20, 2019; (6) Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about May 14, 2019; (7) Court's Order dated February May 14, granting Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial and Motion for Summary Judgment Date filed in this Action on or about February 20, 2019; and (8) Plaintiff Setareh's Motion to Compel

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

STEVE SNOECK VS EXAKTIME INNOVATIONS INC

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270(c), “if, as defined in Section 1985.4 or 1985.6, the party giving notice of the deposition is a subpoenaing party, and the deponent is a witness commanded by a deposition subpoena to produce personal records of a consumer or employment records of an employee, the deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 20 days after issuance of that subpoena.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

STEVE SNOECK VS EXAKTIME INNOVATIONS INC

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270(c), “if, as defined in Section 1985.4 or 1985.6, the party giving notice of the deposition is a subpoenaing party, and the deponent is a witness commanded by a deposition subpoena to produce personal records of a consumer or employment records of an employee, the deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 20 days after issuance of that subpoena.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2019

CANDACE POLEE VS JEHANGIR YEGANEH, ET AL

Second, on March 05, 2019, LHC filed an Ex Parte Application for an order appointing discovery referee, to which all Defendants stipulated, to oversee all future discovery matters. The motion was set for expedited hearing on March 07, 2019, and then reset for April 09, 2019. LHC timely supplemented the Ex Parte Application on March 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

DOWELL VS. TARGET

“An oral deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice.” Code Civ. Proc. §2025.270(a). Plaintiff protests that notice was inadequate because Dr. Abdollahi’s deposition was to move forward on 01/12/19, and her counsel had insufficient notice of that date. Plaintiff is the party who served a notice of Dr. Abdollahi’s deposition on 01/3/19, and set the date for 01/13/19. (See Henderson Decl., Ex. E.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

PARKER V. ALAI

Alai) unopposed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Injunctive Relief and Request for Monetary Sanctions (filed on 2-13-19) is DENIED. The court GRANTS judicial notice of the 7-6-18 Minute Order, in Case No. 30-2018-01002061. The court takes judicial notice of the Notice of Ruling dated 7-6-18 and the 7-3-18 Ex Parte Application in this case. Each of the above documents are court records which are subject to judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

LEGAL RECOVERY, LLC V. GOLDEN STATE LUMBER, INC

Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s PMQ deposition on August 8, 2018 naming 8 subject matters for testimony and containing 23 document requests (the “Depo Notice”). (Coopersmith Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B.) Defendant unilaterally chose August 24, 2018 as the deposition date but Plaintiff did not object or appear at the deposition. (Coopersmith Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 & Ex. C.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2018

ARASH SHAKOURI VS TESLA MOTORS INC

These depositions were taken off-calendar when the trial date was continued and set for October 31, 2017. (Ibid.) Haw attests that Plaintiff again noticed depositions on September 11, 2017 to take place on September 22, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. 2.) These deposition notices were served by personal service at least 10 days prior to the date of the depositions. (Haw Decl. Ex. 2; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.270.) Defendant served objections to the deposition notices on September 18, 2017 by mail.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2018

BRETT D KLAUSNER VS FCA US LLC ET AL

Plaintiff’s vehicle is a tangible thing, and the deposition notice was served in a reasonably timely manner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.270 and section 2025.280. Further, the Court finds that the Declaration of Christopher Fisher sufficiently evidences Defendants’ good faith efforts to meet and confer regarding the scheduling of the deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2018

SADLER V. BNSF RAILWAY CO.

However, “On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a deposition, or may stay its taking until the determination of a motion for a protective order under Section 2025.420.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.270, subd. (d).) Here, the plaintiff’s counsel originally served a deposition notice for Karlicek in a timely manner on October 26th, 2017, setting the deposition for November 29th in Chicago.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MELROSE TEXTILE INC VS PROMISE U INC

As noted: “On motion or ex parte application of any party or deponent, for good cause shown, the court may shorten or extend the time for scheduling a deposition…” Thus, the Court properly shortened the time to set the deposition.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Georgina Torres Rizk

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHERRY HARNEY V. DIGNITY HEALTH

On June 8, 2017, plaintiff served a deposition notice on defendant, setting the deposition of defendant’s PMK for June 15. The deposition notice specified 31 subject categories to be covered during the deposition. (Levin Dec., ¶3, Ex. C.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

MANUELA VAZQUEZ V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

If Ford fails timely to provide dates, counsel shall meet and confer and the date of the deposition shall be selected by Vazquez to occur after July 10, 2017. On or before July 7, 2017, Vazquez shall serve notice of the deposition for the appointed date, but in no event giving less than two court days’ notice. If acceptable dates cannot be agreed by this process or otherwise, Vazquez may make an ex parte application for the Court to select a date.

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2017

IN THE MATTER OF SOLON CHARLES SOTERAS

This court granted petitioner's ex parte request for protective order since the deposition did not meet the 10-day statutory notice requirements of Prob.C.§2025.270(a). Contestants now respond with an ex parte application of the their own, asking that attorney Esquibias' deposition be permitted at any time before commencement of the trial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2014

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF SOLON CHARLES SOTERAS

This court granted petitioner's ex parte request for protective order since the deposition did not meet the 10-day statutory notice requirements of Prob.C.§2025.270(a). Contestants now respond with an ex parte application of the their own, asking that attorney Esquibias' deposition be permitted at any time before commencement of the trial.

  • Hearing

    Dec 23, 2014

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

1 2     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.