Tentative ruling on Nov. 02, 2023 in San Joaquin County, CA - Case no: xxxxx122

The Demurrer and Motion to Consolidate set for July 11, 2024 is continued to September 5, 2024, on the Court's own motion. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr., Judge of the Superior Court

The court is informed Defendant filed supporting documents July 9, 2024 and has failed to provide a proof of service of such documents on Plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, further hearing on Defendants' Motion to Set Aside Default is continued to August 6, 2024 at 9:00am in Department 10A to allow Defendants an opportunity to provide proof of service so the court may consider any recently filed documents without violating canons regarding ex parte communications. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

The court having read and considered Plaintiff's unopposed Motion to Compel Arbitration filed May 13, 2024 and good cause appearing, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. The matter is stayed and Arbitration Status hearing is set on November 13, 2024 at 8:45 AM. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

2016-6638 South San Joaquin Irrigation District Motion for Stay Pending Writ 3/22/2023 Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) brings a Motion For Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal and To Vacate Trial Date. Having read the moving papers, the opposition papers, and reply papers, the Court issues the following tentative ruling: On February 3, 2023, The California Court of Appeal Third Appellate District issued an OSC on PG&E’s Petition for Writ of Mandate which seeks to vacate this Court’s ruling on PG&E’s Motion in Limine for Determination of Standard of Proof and Evidentiary Issues at Right to Take Trial. South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) filed it’s Return by Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandate on or about March 6, 2023. On or about March 17, 2023, various third parties filed an Application for Permission to File Amicus Brief. The is no firm time line as to when the Third Appellate District will act on PG&E’s Petition. “Every court has the inherent power, in furtherance of justice, to regulate the proceedings of a trial before it; to effect an orderly disposition of the issues presented; and to control the conduct of all persons in any manner connected therewith. The exercise of this power is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court. . .” (Schimmel v. Levin (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 81, 87.) This inherent power includes the Court’s power to ensure the orderly administration of justice and control its own calendar and docket. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 266-267.) As the parties are well aware, this is an eminent domain case involving an electricity delivery system located within the SSJID. With the Third Appellate District agreeing to hear PG&E’s Petition for Writ of Mandate, the issue concerning the standard of proof remains uncertain. The Court finds the out come on PG&E’s Writ will dictate the scope of evidence and requisite standard of proof at trial. Therefore, the outcome on PG&E’s Writ will impact the scope of discovery in this case. The Court also believes that regardless of the outcome by the Third Appellate District, it is likely the Third District’s ruling will not be the last word. With the uncertainty as to the timeline in which the Third Appellate District will rule on the Writ, the impact of the ruling on the work-up of this case, the likelihood the Supreme Court will be asked to review the Third Appellate District’s ruling, and the scarcity of judicial resources, this Court believes the interest of justice and judicial economy favor the granting of the requested Stay. With the granting of the Stay the May 28, 2024, trial date must be vacated. The request to Stay the Superior Court proceedings and vacate the May 28, 2024, trial date is GRANTED. PG&E is to prepare an order for signature. This matter is set for a further status conference regarding status of the Stay for September 20, 2023, 8:30 a.m. If any party request a hearing on this tentative they may appear remotely via the Dept. 11B Dedicated Bridge Line. To attend the hearing remotely dial (209) 992-5590 and follow the prompts entering Bridge No. 6941 and Pin No. 5554. Thank you. WATERS 3/22/2023 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. As of July 6, 2021, attorneys may appear either in person or remotely at the law and motion hearing. To conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility.

The court having read and considered Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant Convair Group, LLC's Answer rules as follows. Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendant's Answer filed April 20, 2021 asserting that Defendant is an entity which cannotlawfully represent itself citing case law governing corporations. However, Defendant's Answer was filed by attorneys for Defendant and no owners, officers nor directors or any individual has attempted to make an appearance for Defendant LLC. The court finds no grounds to strike Defendant's Answer. Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED. Hon. George J. Abdallah, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court

Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear in person or remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the hearing remotely in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 TENTATIVE RULING - On its own motion, the Court continues the Demurrer to October 10, 2024 at 9:00 A.M. in Department 10D. The Court will post a Tentative Ruling pursuant to the Court's Tentative Ruling procedure as set forth in the Local Rules. No oral argument will be allowed as to this continuance. Barbara A. Kronlund

Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear in person or remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the hearing remotely in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 TENTATIVE RULING - On its own motion, the Court continues Plaintiff's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel to August 8,2024 at 9:00 A.M. in Dept. 10D for proper Proof of Service to be filed prior to the hearing date. The only Proof of Service on file so far is one without the date of hearing- that is a defective and deficient Proof of Service, since the Court does not know if Plaintiff was even aware of the hearing date. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1110(b): CRC Rule 3.1110. General format (b) Date of hearing and other information The first page of each paper must specify immediately below the number of the case: (1) The date, time, and location, if ascertainable, of any scheduled hearing and the name of the hearing judge (2) The nature or title of any attached document other than an exhibit; (3) The date of filing of the action; and (4) The trial date, if set. In order to correct this, a Notice of Hearing or an Amended Notice of Motion must be filed and served showing the new hearing date, time, and location of hearing. No oral argument will be allowed as to this continuance. Barbara A. Kronlund

Drake v. Tecklenburg, et al. – Case No. 2023-1246 2/14/24 – Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause Defendant LEE TECKLENBURG, individually and acting as trustee of the TECKLENBURG-MISSAELIDES REVOCABLE TRUST filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt as to Plaintiff ANN DRAKE. Plaintiff filed an Opposition. Defendant filed a Reply. Having read all the paper, the court issues the following tentative ruling: Defendant’s Motion is MOOT. Defendant’s request for the court to issue an Order to Show Cause Hearing and impose sanctions is DENIED. Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a) and CCP §1019.5(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order Blanca A. Bañuelos Judge of the Superior Court of California Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org that they intend to appear remotely or in person in Dept. 10B no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. Department 10B is open for in person appearances. For remote appearances, please call into the dedicated conference bridge line for Department 10B at the time set for the hearing. The conference bridge phone number is (209) 992-5590. Follow the prompts and dial 6939 (4-digit bridge line) and 3892 (4-digit pin number).

TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Court is issuing one tentative ruling for both motions on calendar this date Tentative Rulings Defendant TUSD's motion to stay action is Denied, without prejudice. A court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice. (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.) The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the cause on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants. (Ibid.) Trial courts generally have inherent power to stay proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1376-79; Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128(a)(3) ["Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings before it, or its officers."] and (a)(5) ["Every court shall have the power to do all of the following: To control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it, in every matter pertaining thereto."]. Both parties acknowledge this Court’s discretion in considering this Motion. However, the parties differ about the applicable standards that should govern this discretion. This case was filed in November of 2022, and we have only had one CMC so far, and Defendant TUSD is only now filing an answer. The Court has until November of 2027 to get this case to trial. Defendant TUSD's 2 requests for judicial notice (RFJN) are denied, except as to the fact of a Writ Petition being filed with the 6th DCA on another similar case from Monterey regarding the constitutionality of AB 218, and the filing in the 1st DCA of an appeal on the same issue in yet another case. None of the rest of the documents included in the RFJNs are relevant to this motion. Defendants object to Plaintiff's Counsel's declaration which essentially seeks judicial notice of numerous other cases' orders and filings; these are not relevant and have no precedential value in this case. Likewise, these authorities are not properly subject to judicial notice. The Court can not say that a stay in this action, of unknown duration, would serve the interests of justice or judicial efficiency or economy under all of the circumstances. Defendant City's motion for joinder is Granted. Barbara A. Kronlund

2022-7718 Mercado/Arroyo MTC Deposition of PMQ 7/10/2024 Plaintiffs Rocio Mercado and Omar Arroyo bring a Motion to Compel Deposition Attendance of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) and Request for Sanctions. Having read the moving papers, the opposition papers, and reply papers the court issues the following tentative ruling: On February 8, 2024, Plaintiffs properly noticed the deposition of Defendants PMK and Custodians of Records. On February 15, 2024, Plaintiffs followed up with Defendant regarding Plaintiffs’ Notice of Depositions and requested that deposition dates be provided in case Defendant’s PMK was not available on the date the deposition was scheduled. On March 2, 2024, Defendant served objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to defense counsel regarding defendant’s objections. In the transmittal email plaintiffs’ counsel states “WE are in receipt of your objections to the notice of deposition for AHMAC’s PMQ set for Monday, March 11, 2024 at 11:30 A.M.; however, no alternative dates were provided for the deponent. [¶] Please advise as to an alternative, mutually convenient date so we may be able to re-notice this PMQ depo accordingly. IN addition, please see the attached M&C Letter regarding categories of examination.” On March 11, 2024, at 10:47 A.M., plaintiffs’ counsel sent another email to Defense counsel. This email provided the ZOOM link for the scheduled 11:30 A.M. deposition and also the following language, “Again, if the notice date does not work for Honda or the deponent, please advise on alternate dates. [¶] In the event that your office does not provide alternative dates for t his deposition, to protect our clients’ rights we will proceed with the deposition to memorialize your failure to appear.” Neither Defense counsel nor the party deponent appeared at the properly notice deposition and a non-appearance was taken by plaintiffs’ counsel. At 5:51 P.M. on March 11, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel sent defense counsel an email attempting to get deposition dates to obtain the deposition without court intervention. On March 15, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel again sought dates to obtain the deposition. On March 27, 2024, Plaintiffs’ counsel again sent an email in an attempt to get dates to take the deposition. Finally on March 27, 2024 Defense counsel responded to plaintiffs’ counsel’s inquiry. However, defense counsel did not provide dates for the deposition. Rather defense counsel stated, “We have requested availability for a PMQ to be provided as soon as possible, and will notify you as soon as a date is received.” On April 2, 2024, plaintiffs’ counsel again inquired about deposition dates. As of the time the motion was filed, Defense counsel has failed to provide available deposition dates. Trial of this matter is set for August 19, 2024, 1:30 P.M., Dept. 11B. Oral depositions are an authorized method of discovery. (See CCP §2025.010 et seq.) Serving a deposition notice on a party is the method to obtain the party’s attendance at the oral deposition. (CCP §§2025.210-2025.240 / 2025.280.) If a party fails to attend the deposition as noticed the noticing party may bring a motion to compel attendance. If the party fails to attend or proceed with the noticed deposition the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against that party, or the attorney for that party, or both, and in favor any party attending in person or by attorney, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (CCP §2025.430.) In addition, failure to submit to authorized method of discovery is a misuse of the discovery process for which monetary sanctions shall be imposed. (CCP §2023.2023.010(d) /§ 2023.030.) The Motion is GRANTED. Defendant’s PMK is ordered to sit for an oral deposition within 15 days of service of the order on Defense counsel. Defendant is to produce responsive documents at the deposition. The parties are to meet and confer to find an agreeable date, time and location for the deposition within the 15 day window. The request for monetary sanctions is granted. The court finds the hourly rate requested for associate work of $295.00, is reasonable. The court finds the hourly rate requested for Mr. Kirnos of $495.00 is reasonable. The court finds it would take approximately 3 hours of associate time and 2 hours of Mr. Kirnos time write the motion, analyze the opposition, draft a reply and attend the hearing remotely. The court finds that the monetary sanction should include the $60.00 filing fee. Therefore, the court awards $1,935.00 as discovery sanctions against Defendant and Defense counsel. Discovery sanctions payable within 30 days of service of the order. The Mandatory Settlement Conference date of July 22, 2024, 1:30 P.M., Dept. 11B, and Trial Date of August 19, 2024, 1:30 P.M., Dept. 11B, are confirmed and remain as set. WATERS 7/9/2024 Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To conduct a remote appearance, follow the instructions below. There is a dedicated conference bridge lines for Dept. 11B. Call into dedicated conference bridge line at the time set for the hearing. To attend the remote hearing in Dept. 11B: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # 6941 and Pin # 5564. The courtroom clerk will make announcements and the Judge will call the calendar. Please mute your phones when you are not speaking, and remember to unmute your phone when you are speaking. At this time, we are not able to provide information over the phone. To communicate with the Courtroom Clerk of Dept. 11B, please email questions to civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org, indicating in the title of the email the Department, Case number, Case Name, and party’s name. A Courtroom Clerk will return your email. To ensure the Court has your most recent contact information, if you have not already done so, please register your email address and mobile number on the Court’s website under Online Services, Attorney Registration. (You do not have to be an attorney to register.) We thank you for your cooperation, assistance, patience and flexibility.

Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear in person or remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the hearing remotely in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 TENTATIVE RULING - On its own motion, the Court continues Plaintiff's Motion to Deem Facts Admitted to August 8,2024 at 9:00 A.M. in Dept. 10D for proper Proof of Service to be filed prior to the hearing date. The Notice of Motion shows that the hearing date is scheduled for 07/24/2024 at 9:00 A.M., when in fact the hearing date is scheduled for 07/16/2024 at 9:00 A.M.. In order to correct this, an amended Notice of Hearing or Motion must be filed and served showing the new hearing date, time, and location of hearing. No oral argument will be allowed as to this continuance. Barbara A. Kronlund

Please use Case Management Search for Tentative Ruling(s).

TENTATIVE RULING NOTICE Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing. Any party wishing to contest or argue the tentative ruling must email the court at civilcourtclerks@sjcourts.org. that they intend to appear remotely no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. The Department and Case Number must be in the header of the email. The email must include the Department, Case number, Case Name, Motion, party’s name and email, date and time of the hearing, issues they plan to argue, and that they have informed the opposing party. The party must also notify affected counsel, or unrepresented parties, that they intend to appear, no later than 4:00 PM on the day before the scheduled hearing. Unless the Court and opposing counsel have been notified, the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court without oral argument. To attend the remote hearing with Judge Kronlund in Dept. 10-D: Call into (209) 992-5590, then follow the prompts and use the Bridge # and Pin # as follows: Bridge # 6940 Pin # 3782 Tentative Ruling Defendant's motion for order directing PMK of medical billing, Dee Wredberg at Precision Surgery Center, to appear for a further deposition and to produce documents and request for monetary sanctions is Denied. CRC Rules 3.1345 (a) (3), (4); 3.1345 (c) (1), (2). Nonparty PSC mentions an opposition by nonparty Global Financial, but the Court's case management system has no such filing listed in the Register of Actions. It appears the Defense is on a speculative fishing expedition, which the law does not support. Uspenskaya v. Meline (2015) 241 CA4th 996, 1000, citing Katiuzhinsky v. Perry (2007) 152 CA4th 1288, 1298, is instructive: "The problem in cases involving MedFin, or similar companies purchasing accounts receivable (sometimes referred to as factors), is that MedFin's purchase price represents a reasonable approximation of the collectability of the debt rather than a reasonable approximation of the value of the plaintiff's medical services. In other words, the health care providers evaluate the risk of collectability and make a decision to settle for some amount that may or may not reflect the actual value for those services. As this court noted in Katiuzhinsky, ''when the provider decides to sell its bill to MedFin and write off the balance, each party receives something of value: The provider obtains immediate payment and transfers the expense of collection and the risk of nonpayment onto someone else; MedFin, in turn, acquires the medical bill as well as the lien securing it, and will make a profit if it is successful in its collection efforts. [¶] The fact that a hospital or doctor, for administrative or economic convenience, decides to sell a debt to a third party at a discount does not reduce the value of the services provided in the first place.'' (Katiuzhinsky, supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1298, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 309.)" In light of the above case law, the Court fails to see the relevance of the inquiry into the last 6 years of 3rd party business arrangements to purchase medical liens to the present action. The reasonable value of PSC's medical services is what is at issue, but the discovery sought doesn't address the reasonable value of PSC's medical services. The discovery at issue also clearly implicates 3rd parties and their private information, as well as proprietary information of the 3rd parties' contracts. The discovery at issue reflects Global and PSC's business decisions concerning the collectability of certain accounts, which have no probative value as to the reasonable value of PSC's medical services to this Plaintiff. Procedurally, the instant motion is defective due to failure to submit a proper Separate Statement, as required under the California Rules of Court. CCR Rules 3.1345(a)(3), (4); and 3.1345 (c) (1), (2). A separate statement is required for a motion to compel further responses to deposition questions and to compel further responses to production requests. There is no basis to sanction nonparty PSC on this record. There was no waiver by PSC of objections, which were properly raised at the deposition. CCP Section 2025.460(a), (b). Nonparty Counsel Margaret Ziemianek suggested during the brief meet and confer which preceded this motion, that Defense convene a meeting to also include nonparty Global's Counsel, even providing their contact information. It doesn't appear from the papers submitted that was done, but it seems like a good opportunity for the Defense to negotiate a compromise resolution. Barbara A. Kronlund