TOOKES vs IRVING BRONSTEIN

25CV141447: TOOKES vs IRVING BRONSTEIN 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Part two deposition of Plaintiff; filed by IRVING BRONSTEIN (Defendant) + CRS# A-141447-001 in Department 19

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Joscelyn Jones

The Motion to Compel DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL CONTINUED DEPOSITION (VOL. 2) OF PLAINTIFF TYLER TOOKES AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS; FOR APPOINTMENT OF DISCOVERY REFEREE; FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 2,535.00; ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ORDER filed by Robert Griffiths - DOE 4, Ivan G Cornelius, IRVING BRONSTEIN, PTLA Property Management - DOE 5, Bronstein Trust FKA DOE 1 on 06/02/2026 is Granted in Part.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Continued Deposition of Plaintiff Tyler Tookes and Answers to Questions, for Appointment of Discovery Referee, for Monetary Sanctions, or alternatively, for Protective Order is GRANTED, IN PART, as follows.

Defendants’ request for appointment of a discovery referee is DENIED.

Defendants’ request for a protective order is DENIED.

Defendants’ request that Plaintiff appear for a continued deposition and provide further testimony is GRANTED, IN PART. The Court addresses the seven questions set forth in Defendants’ Separate Statement.

As to Questions Nos. 1-2, the motion is DENIED. Defendants fail to demonstrate the relevance of these questions to Plaintiff’s claims in this case or to any applicable defenses.

As to Question No. 3, the motion is GRANTED, to the extent that Plaintiff shall answer the question “Are you sure about that?” If Plaintiff were to answer yes, the inquiry should end there.

As to Questions Nos. 4-5, the motion is GRANTED.

As to Questions Nos. 6-7, the motion is DENIED. Plaintiff answered the question. “I don’t recall” is a sufficient answer.

Counsel shall meet and confer to determine when and where Plaintiff’s deposition shall resume. The deposition shall be completed by September 30, 2026, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.

Finally, Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Apart from the three questions to which Plaintiff is ordered to provide further answers, the Court determines that this motion lacked merit.