Vivian Sultan v. Southern California Edison Company, et al.
Motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to questions
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 506) September 1, 2026 DEPARTMENT 506 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT VIVIAN SULTAN, Plaintiff, vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 24STCV26784 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO QUESTIONS Dept. 506 8:30 a.m. September 1, 2026 | On February 4, 2026, Defendants Southern California Edison Company and Edison International filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff Vivian Sultan to respond to questions posed at the November 19, 2025 deposition. If a deponent fails to answer a question, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2025.480, subd. (a).) For Issue No. 1, the Court finds that Plaintiff provided a complete answer.
For Issues Nos. 2-5, Defendant subsequently propounded interrogatories to obtain the detailed information for those questions, and Plaintiff has provided verified responses. (De Leon Decl. P.P. 3-8.) Accordingly, the motion 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 1st day of September 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?”