MARK KELTNER v. MERCY HOUSING MANAGEMENT GROUP, ET AL

On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order to prevent his March 19, 2026 deposition from proceeding and for a stay until he could obtain new counsel. He also requested sanctions. The subject March 19, 2026 deposition date was rescheduled after Plaintiff opposed sitting for his deposition in February. On March 19, 2026, Plaintiff also filed a substitution of attorney, substituting himself in for counsel.

The parties were referred to a Discovery Facilitator, Eric Meckley. According to the Declaration of Christina Forst, counsel for Defendants, Plaintiff did not participate in the discovery facilitation process and has not responded to recent calls or correspondence. (Forst Decl. ¶ 30-32.)

Legal Analysis

Before a deposition, a party may move for a protective order to prevent the deposition from moving forward on the date listed on the basis of “annoyance, embarrassment or oppression or undue burden and expense.” (Code of Civ. Proc. §2025.420(b).) In this case, Plaintiff initially filed the motion for protective order asserting that he needed time to obtain new counsel and that the March 19, 2026 was insufficient time for him to do so. However, it is now almost two months after the rescheduled deposition date and three months after the filing of Plaintiff’s motion. No new counsel has substituted into the case. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief and did not cooperate with the Discovery Facilitator.

At some point, Defendants must be allowed to depose Plaintiff about his claims. The deposition date has come and gone. Any request for stay until Plaintiff obtains new counsel is unreasonable given that three months have passed with no indication of Plaintiff’s efforts. For

these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for protective order is denied. Sanctions are also denied.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1

Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov