Motion to Compel Deposition
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 13 Honorable Daniel T. Nishigaya R. Belligan, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2240
DATE: June 12, 2026 TIME: 9:00 & 9:01 A.M. TO CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING, YOU MUST CALL (408) 808-6856 BEFORE 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY PRIOR TO THE HEARING. You must also inform all other sides to the issue before 4:00 P.M. the day prior to the hearing that you plan to contest the ruling. The Court will not hear argument, and the tentative ruling will be adopted if these notifications are not made. (Cal. Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1); Civil Local Rule 8.D.)
LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING LINE 1 24CV448687 ISJ General Trading, LLC vs Capital Motion: Judgment on Pleadings Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 1 for tentative ruling. LINE 2 24CV450955 Maria Lopez vs American Honda Motor Motion: Compel Deposition Co., Inc., a California corporation Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 2 for tentative ruling. LINE 3 25CV465834 DALI CHAIA vs GENESIS MOTOR Hearing: Petition Compel Arbitration AMERICA et al Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 3 for tentative ruling. LINE 4 25CV466664 JANE DOE vs PINHSI CHEN et al Hearing: Demurrer
OFF CALENDAR due to the filing of a First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2026. LINE 5 25CV466664 JANE DOE vs PINHSI CHEN et al Motion: Strike
OFF CALENDAR due to the filing of a First Amended Complaint on June 1, 2026. LINE 6 25CV469397 RAFAEL HERRERA vs FCA US LLC Motion: Sanctions
Ctrl Click (or scroll down) on Line 6 for tentative ruling.
Calendar Line 2
Case Name: Maria Lopez vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Case No.: 24CV450955
Defendant moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. It also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,815.00 pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.030 and 2025.450 subdivision (g)(1).
Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff
Defendant, after receiving Plaintiff’s objection to its deposition notice, emailed Plaintiff’s counsel on February 13, 2026, requesting alternative dates. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 4.) When Plaintiff did not respond, Defendant emailed Plaintiff on March 16, 2026, requesting Plaintiff’s availability, noting that it would involve the court if no response was made before March 24, 2026. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 4.) March 24 came and went. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant asking if the requested dates were provided, to which Defendant replied via email on April 3, 2026, that they had not, and again requested Plaintiff’s availability. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 5.)
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?”
Plaintiff failed to respond. On May 1, 2026, Defendant filed this motion. The Court is satisfied that Defendant attempted to resolve this discovery dispute prior to involving the Court and was left with no choice but to file the motion given Plaintiff’s lack of engagement.
Misuses of the discovery process include “failing to respond or submit to an authorized method of discovery, making an evasive response to discovery, failing to confer or to attempt to confer...in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.) Prior to Defendant’s motion to compel, Defendant attempted several times to obtain alternative dates. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 6.) There was a lapse in Plaintiff’s response from November 25, 2025, to April 1, 2026, and again from April 1, 2026, to June 1, 2026, after the motion had been filed. (Dias Decl. ¶ 2-5.) It was not until after Defendant filed this motion that Plaintiff ultimately responded. That response was to oppose the motion and finally to provide Defendant with acceptable dates - November 4, 6, and 9. (Dias Decl. ¶ 7.) This is a misuse of the discovery process.
Although Defendant has accepted the date of November 4, 2026, Plaintiff failed to confer properly to avoid the need for this motion. Therefore, the motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff with document production within 10 days of the agreed upon date of November 4, 2026, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall appear for deposition and produce documents on or before November 14, 2026.
Monetary Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 states that the court may impose sanctions “against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process...unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification”. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.) Plaintiff’s opposition states that during the months of March and April 2026, internal staffing changes related to Plaintiff’s handling attorneys transitioning out of the firm 5
contributed to “some delay” in communication with Defendant. (Dias Decl. ¶ 5.) On June 1, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel took corrective measures by providing alternative dates of November 4, 6, and 9th, 2026. (Dias Decl. ¶ 7.) While such explanation may negate a finding of “deliberate obstruction,” it does not amount to substantial justification or other circumstances making the imposition of the sanction unjust.
Regarding the sanctions amount, Defendant’s minimal reply brief renders the anticipated 3 hours of attorney time unreasonable. The Court will award one hour of time toward the preparation of the reply. This brings the sanctions amount to $1,165.00. Therefore, the Court GRANTS monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,165.00 to be paid within 30 days of the date of service of the final order.
Defendant shall prepare and submit the final order, accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020, within 10 days of the date of the hearing.
- oo0oo -
6