Motion to Compel Deposition of PMK

Useful Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Qualified

Recent Rulings on Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Qualified

MARIA DEL CARMEN BAKLAYAN VS UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.

Compel Deposition On CCP § 2025.450(a) provides, “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice,

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

VAZGEN MIRZAKHANYAN VS JV & T CAPITAL LLC ET AL

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents Moving Party: Defendant Monika Setyan Resp. Party: None (2) Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance and Production of Documents Moving Party: Defendant Monika Setyan Resp. Party: None The motion to compel deposition attendance and production of documents is GRANTED. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions against Volodya Adanyan and his counsel Julie C. Lim in the amount of $1,478.50.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GUADALUPE M LOPEZ VS EL MONTE CITY SCHOOL DISTICT ET AL

A motion to compel deposition shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DRINKWINE V. NGUYEN

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) The Motion by Defendants Kelly Nguyen and Cong Nguyen to compel answers to deposition questions is DENIED. The dispute concerns the deposition of Plaintiff’s designated expert witness, Dr. Jeffrey Gross, and his refusal to answer certain questions at his 12/10/2019 deposition, pursuant to the instruction of Plaintiff’s counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

EDUARDO GUZMAN VS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

On March 30, 2020, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition of Gustavo Gutierrez and request for sanctions. On March 30, 2020, the Court took the nine motions to compel further discovery responses off calendar and set an Informal Discovery Conference for July 13, 2020. Neither the Court nor plaintiff’s counsel has been able to contact Defendant Gutierrez.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANURAG GUPTA VS SHARISE MARIE BARBOSA

Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Deem Matters in Request for Admission as True Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 22, 2019, Plaintiff Anurag Gupta (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Sharise Marie Barbosa (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence arising from an automobile collision that occurred on August 29, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JAIME ALFARO, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiffs move to compel the deposition of Defendant FCA US LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable with production of documents and requests monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argues that Defendant refused to produce a PMK for the deposition noticed for January 22, 2020, only provided one alternative date, and refuse to produce documents at the deposition as set forth in the notice of deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

SEYED SADEGHI VS GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

As a procedural matter, Plaintiff’s moving papers fail to identify any statutory basis to support the motion to compel deposition. Plaintiff however presumably would be seeking relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450 or 2025.480.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROSA MARTIN V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; ET AL.

A Person Most Qualified shall be identified and produced for deposition within 60 days of the date of this hearing.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

IRMA RAMIREZ VS SUPER CENTER CONCEPTS, INC., ET AL.

Analysis Plaintiff seeks to compel deposition of the PMQs and employees identified and named in the deposition subpoenas. (See Mot. Exh. 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

EDDIE URQUIZA VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

BMW of North America, LLC MOVING PARTIES: Plaintiff, Eddie Urquiza OPPOSING PARTY: Defendant, BMW of North America, LLC TRIAL DATE: None PROOF OF SERVICE: OK PROCEEDING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Michael Murray and Production of Documents at Deposition OPPOSITION: June 24, 2020 REPLY: June 30, 2020 TENTATIVE : Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is also denied. Defendant is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

ZIV BAHAT, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

On February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents. This motion relates to the PMK deposition initially set for December 30, 2019. Also on February 10, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a second motion to compel deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable, with Production of Documents.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

MAOHAI ZHENG VS HUA MAO ET AL

DISCUSSION: Motion To Compel Deposition and Document Production Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Hua Mao and production of documents at the deposition. The motion is based on CCP § 2025.450.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JORGE HERNANDEZ V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of General Motor LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) and Request for Sanctions. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of General Motors, LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Custodian of Records and Request for Sanctions is denied. Plaintiff noticed a deposition of Defendant’s PMK on February 3, 2020 for a February 21, 2020 deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

KATHLEEN MARAZONI VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the Court rules as follows. No reply papers were filed. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2018, Plaintiff Kathleen Marazoni (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Los Angeles County Metroplitan Transportation Authority (“Defendant”). The complaint alleges negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent retention arising from a bus colliding into Plaintiff while she was in a motorized wheelchair on May 9, 2018.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

OTERO VS. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.

Motion to Compel Deposition Defendant Albertson’s LLC (“Defendant”) moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Greg Otero (“Plaintiff”) to appear for deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

WALTER DONLEY, AN INDIVIDUAL VS FRANK LARA, AN INDIVIDUAL, JR, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On October 1, 2019, Plaintiff Walter Donley (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Frank Lara, Jr. and Rubio’s Fleet. The complaint alleges motor vehicle and general negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on October 25, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CHEYENNE FIGUEROA ET AL VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE INC ET AL

On February 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Hooman Nissani and Request for Sanctions. On March 11, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Further Deposition and Further Response of Defendant Rayan Nissani and Request for Sanctions. On March 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant NBA Automotive’s Person(s) Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Request for Sanctions.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NITA LOGGINS VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Motion to Compel Deposition Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On March 12, 2018, Plaintiff Nita Loggins (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants City of Los Angeles and Fredy E. Salazar. The complaint alleges premises liability and negligence for a trip-and-fall that occurred on August 29, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

ARSHAM MELKONIAN, ET AL. VS OPHC, LLC DBA OAKPARK HEALTHCARE CENTER, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition is DENIED as moot. The Court finds that Defendant Oakpark’s counsel’s declaration is sufficient evidence that McGrath is not an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of Defendant Oakpark. Accordingly, Plaintiff was required to issue a deposition subpoena in order to compel the deposition of McGrath.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

JINN ONG VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

ANALYSIS Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant General Motors, LLC’s senior repurchase reviewer Dave McWhorter, with production of documents. The Court continued the hearing on this motion from March 6, 2020 to permit supplemental briefing to address the Court’s online tentative regarding whether McWhorter is a “managing agent” for purposes of a party-affiliated deposition.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

SERGIO ANGEL GARCIA VS BARONHR LLC ET AL

Motion To Compel Deposition Defendant Plastic Express moves to compel Plaintiff’s deposition and requests the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff has not submitted to a deposition on the date noticed, and would not agree to a date for the deposition to be reset.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Motion To Compel Deposition Plaintiff moves to compel production of a competent PMK by Defendant FCA US, LLC, and requests sanctions. Discussion: Although Defendant’s PMK deposition occurred on September 9, 2019, Plaintiff argues that he was unable to provide competent testimony as to 24 of the 33 requested categories: Nos. 1 to 9 and 11 to 25. (Declaration of Amy Morse ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

EDUARDO GUZMAN VS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Gustavo Gutierrez A. Relevant Law The service of a deposition notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action to attend and testify. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JULIE HSIN TING LEE AU VS KIM TUYET HUYNH

Motion to Compel Deposition; Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On May 25, 2019, Plaintiff Ruthie Stockfish (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Amos Stockfish, Aliakbar J. Neyestani, Shirin Neystani, and Neystani Family Trust. The complaint alleges negligence and premises liability for a trip-and-fall that occurred on May 14, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 46     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.