Odetto v. General Motors, LLC

(Id., Exhibits B-1, B-2.) On July 22, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the deposition notices indicating he would meet and confer with GM’s counsel to reschedule to a mutually convenient date and time. (Lasater decl., ¶6, Exhibits C-1, C-2.) On November 4, 2025, GM’s counsel sent followup e-mails to Plaintiffs’ counsel requesting deposition dates and noting the upcoming deadline. (Lasater decl., ¶7, Exhibit D.) On December 18, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered February 6, 2026, as an available date for Plaintiffs’ depositions, which GM’s counsel accepted on January 6, 2026. (Lasater decl., ¶¶8, 9, Exhibits E, F.)

On January 23, 2026, GM served Amended Notices of Deposition for Plaintiffs to appear for deposition on February 6, 2026. (Lasater decl., ¶10, Exhibits G-1, G-2.) On February 3 and 4, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed objections to the February 6, 2026, deposition date. (Lasater decl., ¶12, Exhibits J-K.) The objections indicated that Plaintiffs would not appear due to a scheduling conflict. (Ibid.) On February 4, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel followed up by email and requested GM’s counsel reach out to reschedule the depositions. (Id., Exhibit L.)

On February 24, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel offered April 16, 2026, for Plaintiffs’ depositions. (Lasater decl., Exhibit M, p. 8.) On June 13, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested to reschedule the depositions to July 7, 8, or 9, 2026. (Stark decl., ¶7.) GM responded accepting July 7, 2026, but it did not receive confirmation. (Ibid.) On July 8, 2026, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested to reschedule the depositions for August 3, 4, or 5, 2026. (Id., ¶8.) On July 9, 2026, GM confirmed August 4, 2026, as the deposition date. (Ibid.)

B. Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that the depositions have now been scheduled making this motion moot. Plaintiffs’ depositions are now scheduled for August 4, 2026. (Smith decl., ¶4.) Thus, by the time of the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs’ depositions should have been taken. However, this does not resolve the issue of sanctions.

C. Sanctions

CCP section 871.26(j) provides, in relevant part: “Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows:” ... “A one-thousandfive-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney” ... “paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c).” (CCP section 871.26(j)(2).)

In an attempt to establish good cause for the delay in taking Plaintiffs’ depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that service of the deposition notices was made to the firm-wide email addresses instead of a case-specific email address. This does not establish good cause for Plaintiffs’ failure to submit to the required depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel received the notices and met-andconferred with GM’s counsel over the depositions, twice delaying them for a substantial amount of time. The time elapsed from the issuance of the deposition notices to the now purported set deposition date can only be categorized as dilatory and pure gamesmanship in this instance.

Here, Plaintiffs failed to comply with CCP section 871.26(c) as they did not allow their depositions to be taken within 120 days of GM’s responsive pleading. Plaintiffs’ counsel has not shown good cause for the delay. Assuming Plaintiffs’ depositions went forward on August 4, 2026, that is over a year after GM filed its responsive pleading. This shows inadequate diligence in attending to this case.

III.

Conclusion

Assuming the depositions have occurred, the motion to compel compliance is DENIED as MOOT. However, in the event that Plaintiffs failed to present at deposition August 4, 2026, then Plaintiffs are required to present for depositions within ten (10) days of this order. Sanctions are 2

granted in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, who is directed to pay them to Defendant’s counsel within 15 business days of this order. GM’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

2. 25CV03160, Looney v. Harsiddhi Foods Inc.

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

Plaintiff Gary E. Looney, dba Collectronics of California (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order compelling Defendants Harsiddhi Foods, Inc. dba VJ’s Sports Bar X Pizza and Varun Limbachiya, individually as personal guarantor of Harsiddhi Foods Inc. (“Defendants”), to furnish responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Post Judgment Interrogatories and Plaintiff’s Post Judgment Demand for Production of Documents and Tangible Things. Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $60.

On September 23, 2025, Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Defendants in the amount of $5,252.37. On October 13, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendants with form interrogatories and a request for production of documents. (Looney Decl. ¶1, Ex. A.) As of the date of the motion, no responses have been provided. (Id., at ¶¶2-4.)

The motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ordered to provide responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and to pay sanctions in the amount of $60 within 30 days of this order. The court will sign the proposed order.

3. 25CV04758, Garcia v. LCS Community Employment, LLC

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

This matter is on calendar for the motion of Defendant LCS Community Employment LLC to sever Plaintiffs’ claims or, in the alternative, to order separate trials. This matter was originally heard on March 25, 2026, and was continued for proof of service showing service of the motion after it was filed or of notice of the hearing. As of the time the court reviewed this matter, proof of service had not been filed. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. This court’s minute order shall constitute the order of the court.

4. 25CV06130, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Foley

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE). 3