Hall vs. Rexel USA, Inc.

7. Reicherts vs. Farris

25-01479895

1. Motion for Sanctions 2. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

VACATED 8. Hall vs. Rexel USA, Inc.

24-01396185

Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written) (x4)

Plaintiff Jeffrey Hall’s Motions to Compel the Depositions of Laurence McDonald, Rosae Rosas, Amy Travis, and Eric Lazorko are CONTINUED to 10/20/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department CM02. Plaintiff moves pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450, subd. (a) to compel the depositions. Plaintiff submits the declaration of Elyza P. Heraldez to establish that Plaintiff has complied with the pre-filing meet and confer requirement prior to filing these motions. Heraldez, however, only establishes that meet and confer efforts took place via written correspondence.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §2025.450, subd. (b)(2) a motion to compel deposition must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration that complies with Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040. Code Civ. Proc. §2016.040 requires “a reasonable and good faith attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference” to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the motion.

Accordingly, the Parties are ORDERED to meet and confer in person, by telephone or by video conference regarding the scheduling of these depositions. If the Parties reach an agreement regarding the scheduling of the depositions, they can notify the Court, and the continued hearing date will be vacated.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Plaintiff has not complied with Code Civ. Proc. §2023.040, which requires that a party seeking sanctions “in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought...” Here, the notices of motion do not request monetary sanctions and do not identify any person, party and/or attorney against whom sanctions are sought.

THIS RULING IS FINAL.

Plaintiff shall provide notice.