Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Motion to Reopen Discovery and Compel Deposition
CASE NUMBER: 24CV-0205967 Tentative Ruling on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel: Daniel Gopstein of Quill and Arrow, LLP moves to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Jasmine Kasmira Roghani. The motion is unopposed. The matter has not been properly noticed. CCP § 1005(b) requires a motion to be filed and served at least sixteen court days prior to the hearing. Plaintiff was served on July 22, 2026 by mail; less than sixteen court days prior to today’s hearing. Defendant was served on July 27, 2026 by email; less than sixteen court days prior to today’s hearing.
The motion is denied for Counsel’s failure to timely serve the motion as required by CCP § 1005(b). Additionally, the Court notes that trial is scheduled for August 11, 2026. Accordingly, the Court has legitimate concerns about relieving counsel so close to the trial date. If Counsel were relieved, Plaintiff would have insufficient time to seek new counsel.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial. Given the pending trial date, the parties are encouraged to meet and confer about the trial date and whether a stipulation to continue may be in order.
Tentative Ruling on Motion to Reopen Discovery and Compel Deposition: Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. moves for an order to reopen discovery, to compel the depositions of Plaintiff’s five designated experts and for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,524.00. In the alternative, Defendant seeks an order to exclude the experts’ testimony. Plaintiff has submitted an opposition that argues that the motion is now moot because Plaintiff has offered a deposition date for expert Darrell Blasjo. Plaintiff does not oppose the reopening of discovery for the Blasjo deposition. Plaintiff requests that the Court not impose sanctions based on this offer. The opposition does not address Defendant’s request to depose the other four designated experts.
Merits of Motion: CCP § 2024.050(a) permits a party to move to reopen discovery. The request to reopen discovery is unopposed. The Court finds good cause to reopen discovery for the sole purpose of obtaining the depositions of Plaintiff’s designated experts. The Court grants the request to reopen discovery. 7
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?”
While Plaintiff argues that the motion is now moot because they have offered a date for one of the experts, the Court finds that the motion is not moot. Plaintiff has not agreed to nor provided dates for the other experts. The Court finds that Defendant properly noticed the expert depositions. A review of the evidence shows that Defendant did not provide dates for the depositions in the meet and confer process. Accordingly, Defendant had no choice but to file the current motion. The Court will grant the request to compel the depositions of all five experts.
Finally, there is the issue of monetary sanctions. The Court may impose sanctions for a “misuse of the discovery process.” CCP § 2023.030. Misuses of discovery include failing to respond to authorized discovery and unsuccessfully opposing a motion to compel. CCP § 2023.030(d) and (h). The Court finds that Plaintiff failed to respond to authorized discovery and has unsuccessful opposed the current motion. Additionally, the Court finds that there is no evidence that the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. The Court will order sanctions in the amount of $2,524.00.
The motion is GRANTED. The depositions shall occur within seven days. Sanctions are imposed in the amount of $2,524. The sanctions are payable within 30 days of service of the notice of entry of order. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to conform to the Court’s ruling.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION VS. BORGNA