2030.010 et seq., and 2033.010 et seq. Counsel shall allot sufficient time to these discussion(s) to enable counsel to “compare their views, consult, and deliberate,” and shall make good faith efforts to resolve any disputes. Following these discussions, if any issues remain outstanding for court intervention, Defendant Lopez may file a renewed motion setting forth the discovery response(s) remaining at issue, and including a detailed description of the proposals the parties made to resolve the dispute before Defendant Lopez filed the renewed motion. The court notes that failure to meet and confer in good faith and in compliance with this court’s order may result in monetary sanctions against the parties and/or their counsel of record.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Motion to Compel Deposition

Plaintiff Susan Alcantar moves to compel the deposition of Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

At a mutually agreeable time no later than July 17, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., SHALL produce the person(s) most knowledgeable as to deposition topic nos. 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33.

Standard on Motion to Compel Deposition

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(a) provides that: “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, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 2025.450(a).) “If a deponent fails . . . to produce any document or tangible thing under the dpeonent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling . . . production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480(a).)

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration (see

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by R. Shawn Nelson Judge R. Shawn Nelson dossier Other Motion to Compel Further Responses in ORANGE All ORANGE County rulings Other Discovery Motion cases Other denied rulings in ORANGE

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

, 2025.450(b)(2)) and set forth good cause justifying the production of documents described in the deposition notice (

(b)(1)). In order to show “good cause,” the burden is on the moving party to make a “fact specific showing of relevance.” (

.) Arguments made in the moving papers or in a separate statement are insufficient to satisfy this requirement; good cause must be shown by way of admissible evidence, such as by declaration. (

Once good cause is shown by the moving party, the burden then shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made to requests for production. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98.)

Categories of Testimony

As an initial matter, this court assumes Plaintiff does not intend to compel deposition as to deposition topic nos. 1, 16, 17, 18, 34, and 35, as Plaintiff’s Separate Statement does not set forth these topics or address the objections thereto.

Defendant JPMC fails to justify the objections asserted in response to deposition topic nos. 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33. Although Defendant argues that it has no relevant non-privileged and non-protected knowledge because Plaintiff was driving her personal vehicle at the time of the incident and did not inform Defendant JPMC of the incident until after this litigation commenced, Defendant submits no evidence to support these contentions. Arguments raised in briefs constitute the unsworn statements or testimony of counsel, which do not constitute evidence within the meaning of the Evidence Code. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413, fn. 11; see In re Marriage of Pasco (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 585, 592; see DiCola v. White Brothers Performance Products, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 666, 683.)

Plaintiff does not show good cause justifying the production of documents described in the deposition notice, and good cause is not apparent on the face of the Requests for Production.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g) provides for the recovery of monetary sanction in connection with a motion to compel deposition, but Plaintiff seeks no monetary sanction here.

Plaintiff to give notice to all parties.

9 Sanchez v. Yagar Defendant Faye Araceli Yagar motions for order compelling Plaintiff Francisca J. Tellez Sanchez to Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPs (Set One) are GRANTED.

A party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery at any time “[i]f a party to whom [discovery requests] are directed fails to serve a timely response.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290(b) [interrogatories], 2031.300(b) [RFPs].) By failing to serve timely responses, the responding party waives “any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290(a).) Similarly, the responding party waives “any objection to the [inspection] demand, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product

under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300(a).)

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff did not timely respond to the discovery at issue, and Plaintiff does not oppose the requested relief. For these reasons, the court will GRANT the motions and order Plaintiff to provided verified, code-compliant responses without objection to the Form Interrogatories (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), and RFPs (Set One).

The court finds the circumstances make the imposition of requested monetary sanctions unjust and, on that basis, will DENY Defendant’s request for sanctions against Plaintiff Francisca J. Tellez Sanchez. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, 2030.290(c), 2031.300(c).)

Defendant to give notice.