DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV023897·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 9 days agoGRANTED

BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff

Hearing date
Aug 10, 2026
Department
8C
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

DefendantRon Conte
PlaintiffRickey Dean Blockton
DefendantNorth American Technologies, LLC

Ruling

24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendants North American Technologies, LLC (“NAT”) and Ron Conte’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff in pro per Rickey Dean Blockton (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

In August of 2025, NAT’s counsel informed Plaintiff’s former counsel that it intended to take Plaintiff’s deposition in person in September of 2025. Plaintiff’s former counsel never provided

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023897: BLOCKTON vs NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff in Department 8C

dates for the deposition. On March 10, 2026, NAT served a notice of deposition for March 30, 2026. On March 27, 2026, NAT’s counsel contacted Plaintiff’s former counsel to confirm Plaintiff’s attendance, and Plaintiff’s former counsel indicated that he did not expect Plaintiff to appear. On March 30, 2026, NAT took a notice of Plaintiff’s nonappearance. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff’s former counsel withdrew from the case.

Plaintiff shall appear for his deposition by no later than August 17, 2026 or a later date agreed to by the parties in writing.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

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