Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield

nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 17, 19 through 21, 24 through 30, 34, 35, 40 and 41. Therefore, the same reasoning and analysis apply. The protective order motion appears moot in regard to Marborg RFP nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 17, 19 through 21, 24 through 30, 34, 35, 40 and 41, and will be denied as moot as to those requests.

As to the request for an award of sanctions, the Order states: "The Court will determine Plaintiff's request for an award of sanctions at the continued hearing on the protective order motion." Subject to exception not relevant here, the Court "shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with [Code of Civil Procedure [s]ection 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order" unless the Court "finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 2030.090, subd. (d), & Sec. 2031.060, subd. (h).) Under the totality of the circumstances present here, and considering the Court's ruling herein, the Court finds that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's request for an award of monetary sanctions.

The Court has reviewed the proposed order lodged by Plaintiff and does not intend to sign it. The Court will require Plaintiff to submit, for the Court's signature, a corrected proposed order that conforms to the ruling set forth herein.

Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Tentative Ruling Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Monica Robles. Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, Summer Massey. Issue Motions to Compel RULING These are two motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, and California Managed Imaging Medical Group, respectively.

No opposition or other response has been filed. Both motions attach the respective deposition subpoenas. Neither motion attaches a completed or signed proof of service as to a deposition subpoena. Both proofs of service check contradictory boxes as to the person serving, stating that the person serving the subpoena is both a registered California process server and not a registered California process server. In the absence of proof that either deposition subpoena was served on the respective deponent, both motions are denied without prejudice. The Trial Date of 11/4/26 is confirmed.