DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CIVRS2400599·sanbernardino·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing about 2 months agoMotions to Compel (1&2) are GRANTED; Sanctions are DENIED.

Daniel S. Bryant, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al

Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Daniel S. Bryant and Sanctions; Compel Depositions of Plaintiff Sharon L. Noonan and Sanctions

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
R12
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDaniel S. Bryant
PlaintiffSharon L. Noonan
DefendantFord Motor Company

Ruling

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

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share