DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24613647·sf·Civil·Discovery
Hearing 9 months agoGRANTED

CASSANDRA GAMM ET AL VS. MI CUNITA DE NOE VALLEY NURSERY, AN ENTITY OF ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Plaintiffs For 1. An Order Enforcing Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance And Production Of Document And Things, And Compelling Chris Bennett'S Attendance At Deposition And Compliance With Subpoena

Hearing date
Nov 12, 2025
Department
301
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$960

Parties

PlaintiffCASSANDRA GAMM
PlaintiffBRENDAN FOLIE
PlaintiffESTATE OF GRIFFIN FOLIE
DefendantMI CUNITA DE NOE VALLEY NURSERY
DefendantCHRIS BENNETT

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC24613647 - November 12, 2025 Hearing date: November 12, 2025 Case number: CGC24613647 Case title: CASSANDRA GAMM ET AL VS. MI CUNITA DE NOE VALLEY NURSERY, AN ENTITY OF ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24613647 | Case Title: | | CASSANDRA GAMM ET AL VS. MI CUNITA DE NOE VALLEY NURSERY, AN ENTITY OF ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-11-12 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion Of Plaintiffs For 1. An Order Enforcing Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance And Production Of Document And Things, And Compelling Chris Bennett'S Attendance At Deposition And Compliance With Subpoena | Rulings: | | On the Law and Motion/Discovery calendar for November 12, 2025, line 7.

PLAINTIFFS CASSANDRA GAMM, BRENDAN FOLIE, ESTATE OF GRIFFIN FOLIE'S Motion For 1. An Order Enforcing Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance And Production Of Document And Things, And Compelling Chris Bennett'S Attendance At Deposition And Compliance With Subpoena.

Plaintiffs Cassandra Gamm, Brendan Dolie, and the Estate of Griffin Folie's unopposed motion enforcing the deposition subpoena, production of documents, and compelling Chris Bennett's attendance is granted. The court orders Defendant Chris Bennett to pay Plaintiffs $960 in sanctions by November 26, 2025.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/VJ/DH) | |

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