Jose Armenta v. Sonic Industries, Inc., et al.
Motion to Compel Deposition
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 506) August 27, 2026 DEPARTMENT 506 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT JOSE ARMENTA, Plaintiff, vs. SONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 24STCV21989 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. August 27, 2026 | On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff Jose Armenta filed this action against Defendant Sonic Industries, Inc. On July 24, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of Patrick Boyan, Defendant's Plant Manager. If a party to the action fails to appear for examination without making a proper objection, the party noticing the deposition may move to compel the deponent's attendance and testimony. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 20205.450, subd. (a).)
Since May 16, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel requested deposition dates for Patrick Boyan. Each time Plaintiff noticed a deposition, Defendant's counsel asked to reschedule, and Plaintiff obliged. This continued through Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Notice of Deposition of Patrick Boyan, scheduled for July 6, 2026 and served on June 4, 2026. The Court is guessing that Plaintiff's counsel subscribes to the common belief that depositions cannot be noticed until after a date is agreed on by the parties and that to do otherwise is to improperly "unilaterally" set the deposition.
It is not improper to unilaterally pick a date. Patrick Boyan did not fail to appear for a noticed deposition that remained on calendar. Even if the motion were not mooted by his August 10, 2026 deposition, there would be nothing to compel. Accordingly, the motion (including request for sanctions) is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.
Dated this 27th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Thomas D. Long Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->
Cited authorities
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?”