Shams v. Seen

date agreeable to both sides.) The history reported by moving party is: “On February 26, 2026, the Court granted GM?s Motion for Compliance and Request for Sanctions. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 4; Exh. A.) The Court ordered Plaintiff sit for deposition on March 12, 2026 or a date agreeable to the parties. (Id.)

The parties agreed on March 9, 2026 and on this date, counsel for GM signed onto zoom at the agreed upon time of 11 a.m. At this time, counsel for Plaintiff signed on and requested a delayed start of 11:30 a.m. At 11:39 a.m., counsel for GM emailed counsel for Plaintiff stating that everyone was signed onto Zoom and waiting for Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel. Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to this email until 11:55 a.m. stating she signed on shortly after counsel for GM must have signed off. Plaintiff’s counsel requested to reschedule for a Monday and GM agreed to the date of March 16, 2026 at 11 a.m. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 5; Exh. B.)

On March 11, 2026, despite agreeing to the deposition date of March 12, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to the Amended Notice of Deposition for Plaintiff to appear on March 12, 2026. The objection however stated that Plaintiff would be produced for deposition. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 6; Exh. C.)

On March 8, 2026, March 13, 2026 and March 16, 2026, counsel for GM emailed Plaintiff’s counsel for the required initial disclosures in order to meaningfully prepare for and conduct Plaintiff’s scheduled deposition. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 7; Exh. D.)

On March 16, 2026 at 11 a.m., which was the most recent agreed upon deposition date and time, counsel for GM signed onto Zoom once again. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear. Counsel for GM went on the record at 11:20 a.m., having not heard from Plaintiff’s counsel and took a non-appearance. (Lasater Decl., at ¶ 8; Exh. E.)?

No opposition has been filed by 5/14/2026. The history reveals failure to comply with the court’s order and then multiple failures to appear are scheduled. Plaintiff also failed to timely comply with statutory disclosure requiring a motion to compel. This is discovery abuse without substantial justification.

The motion for terminating sanctions is granted. The 1 st Amended Complaint filed on 8/12/2025 is stricken, the case is dismissed with prejudice. Because the court is granting terminating sanctions, monetary sanctions are not awarded. Defendants are the prevailing parties. Costs per Memorandum of Costs.

Because the court is dark on 5/15/2026, this tentative ruling is posted on Thursday for Monday's hearing. It is so ordered, Clerk to give notice.