Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Dr. Friedman; Request for Monetary Sanctions
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 11/20/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Dr. Friedman and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE:
Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:
To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.
Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.
The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.
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?”
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 11/20/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Dr. Friedman and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 53
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Kristin Gordons unopposed motion to quash the deposition subpoena issued to Dr. Friedman is denied.
Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoena issued by Defendant California Department of Parks and Recreation. Expert discovery closed on July 28, 2025 based on the August 11, 2025 trial date. The subpoena called for records to be produced on August 8, 2025. The instant motion was filed on July 17, 2025. On July 22, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiffs ex parte application which sought to advance the hearing on this motion to August 11, 2025 (the same date as trial), given that such requested date in itself was beyond the statutory deadline to hear this motion. At no point has the Court granted a motion to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050.
With respect to expert discovery, [a]ny party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings pertaining to a witness identified under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) on or before the 15th day, and to have motions concerning that discovery heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (CCP § 2024.030.)
Here, even assuming Plaintiff is correct that the subpoena improperly called for documents from an expert after expert discovery closed, the instant motion was noticed for a date after the trial date. As noted, motions concerning expert discovery must be heard on or before the 10th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action. (CCP § 2024.030.) [A] party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard. (Cottini v.
Enloe Medical Center (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 420 [emphasis in original].) While the parties stipulated to a new trial date of January 12, 2026, the Presiding Judges August 15, 2025, order noting the stipulation is silent with respect to discovery deadlines. [A] continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings. (CCP § 2024.020(b).) The instant motion here was scheduled to be heard after the trial date and is untimely.
The motion is denied.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 11/20/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Issued to Dr. Friedman and Request for Monetary Sanctions in Department 53
Plaintiffs request for sanctions is denied as the motion was denied.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.