DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV479669·santaclara·Civil·Personal Injury
Hearing in about 3 hoursGRANTED

Daniel Scholl v. Amiel Wade et al.

Motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,536

Parties

PlaintiffDaniel Scholl
DefendantAmiel Wade
DefendantWade Litigation, APC

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 5 25CV474539 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Andrew Tajvar Line 6 25CV479669 Daniel Scholl v. Amiel Defendant Wade Litigation, APC’s motion to compel the Wade et al. deposition of plaintiff Daniel Scholl. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiff. (The court did not review plaintiff’s unauthorized supplemental opposition.) Plaintiff has failed to appear for a deposition on two occasions. The court finds no substantial justification for those failures to appear.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must sit for a deposition no later than September 18, 2026. Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant $1,536 in sanctions no later than September 18, 2026. That amount consists of the $60 motion filing fee plus court reporter costs actually incurred by plaintiff’s failure to appear at the two scheduled depositions (evidenced by invoices attached to defense counsel’s declaration). The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV479981 Zechariah Senior v. Zaher Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling.

Lopez et al. Line 8 23CV423619 Timothy Young v. BMW of Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. North America, LLC

- oo0oo -

3

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