Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Production of Documents; and for Monetary Sanctions
Case No. CU24-09634
Defendant General Motors LLC’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Appearance and Testimony at Deposition and Production of Documents; and for Monetary Sanctions
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S APPEARANCE AND TESTIMONY AT DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS is DENIED. Per movant’s own admission (Exhibit F to GM Motion to Compel), defense counsel was aware on May 18, 2026 that Plaintiff would not be appearing for the May 20,2026 deposition. Regardless whether there was good cause for the postponement, Defendant had sufficient time to cancel the proceeding. Therefore, any expense incurred by showing up on the 20th with full knowledge the deposition would not be going forward, was of its own making.
Finally, there is no evidence provided of a meaningful meet and confer by GM to reschedule after the cancelled deposition. Plaintiff is the only one that provided such evidence of providing alternate dates (albeit after this motion was filed), to which GM purportedly did not respond.
For these reasons the motion is denied and sanctions are denied. However, the parties are ordered to appear for the motion hearing. At that time, the court intends to place the parties into a Zoom breakout room to meet and confer until a new deposition date within the next 30 days is agreed upon. That date will then be put on the record and enforced by the court, as necessary.
TRAN v. WISE AUTO GROUP, et al.
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?”