Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Daniel S. Bryant and Sanctions; Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Sharon L. Noonan and Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING FOR JULY 2, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Daniel S. Bryant, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al – CIVRS2400599 Motion: (1) Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Daniel S. Bryant and Sanctions (2) Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Sharon L. Noonan and Sanctions Movant: Defendant Ford Motor Company Respondent: (1)-(2) Plaintiffs Daniel S. Bryant and Sharon L. Noonan RULING: Motions to Compel (1&2) are GRANTED; Sanctions are DENIED. Defendant, Ford - to provide Order(s) and give Notice.
In light of Plaintiffs’ willingness to proceed with their depositions, Ford’s motions to compel are granted. Plaintiffs’ depositions are ordered to proceed on either July 13, 2026 or July 24, 2026, if those dates are acceptable to Ford. Otherwise, the Court will discuss with the parties agreeable dates for Plaintiffs’ depositions and order them to occur on those dates.
Separately, regarding Plaintiffs’ statement about not having yet deposed Ford’s PMK, the fact Plaintiffs have not deposed Ford’s PMK has no bearing on whether their depositions should proceed.
As to Ford’s request for sanctions, though reasonable in amount, there is no evidence of a meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by videoconference after Plaintiffs failed to appear for the depositions noticed under the fourth amended notices that were set for January 29 and February 2, 2026. Recognizing Ford’s argument of a code compliant meet and confer on an earlier deposition request, that effort needs to be repeated on subsequent amended notices. Had there been, the Court would have granted sanctions.
Dated: July 2, 2026
____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson
1
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”