700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 07/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

34-2022-00319929-CU-BC-GDS: 700 Block Commercial LP vs. Matt Delima 07/08/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Attendance at Deposition in Department 53

will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Matt DeLima (“Defendant”) to compel Plaintiff 700 Block Commercial LP (“Plaintiff”) to produce its person most qualified for deposition is unopposed and GRANTED. The request for sanctions is denied.

Trial in this action is set for July 14, 2025. Absent an agreement of the parties, the deadline to complete non-expert discovery was June 16, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.060, 2024.020.) On June 2, 2025, Defendant electronically served a notice of deposition of person most knowledgeable pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.310(a).[1] The notice demanded Plaintiff produce its PMQ on Saturday, June 14, 2025. Following meet and confer discussions on June 11, 2025 and June 13, 2025, Plaintiff represented they would not produce anyone at the deposition. Defendant proceeded to convene the deposition, obtained a record of nonappearance, and subsequently moved to compel the deposition. Defendant requests the deposition proceed within 5 court days of an order on this motion.

Plaintiff did not file an opposition explaining why the deposition should not be allowed. The Court treats the failure to oppose the motion as a concession on its merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n. 4.)

The motion to compel is granted. Plaintiff shall produce its person(s) most qualified on the categories identified in the notice for deposition on a mutually agreeable date on or before July 15, 2025.

There is no evidence in the moving papers that Defendant complied with the ethical obligation to make reasonable efforts to schedule the deposition before sending formal notice. (Sacramento County Bar Association’s Standards of Professional Conduct, § 4a.(3) attached to Local Rules as Appendix A.) Rather, the evidence presented indicates Defendant, on the eve of the close of discovery, unilaterally scheduled a deposition, on a Saturday, with the minimum notice required, despite including multiple requests for the production of documents at the deposition. Under these circumstances, the Court finds the imposition of sanctions would be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g).) [1] The Court notes Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.310(a) authorizes the deposition of a person most qualified

(“PMQ”), not a person most knowledgeable.