Wesam Desilva v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 735) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 735 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Mexican Grill, Inc. Motion to Compel Deposition On October 18, 2024, Plaintiff Wesam Desilva filed this civil rights action against Defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. Chipotle moves to compel Plaintiff's deposition, which Plaintiff opposes.

DISCUSSION On August 28, 2025, Chipotle noticed Plaintiff's deposition to occur on September 24, 2025. ("Al-Zibdeh Decl., P. 2.) The deposition notice was confirmed delivered to Plaintiff by mail via USPS on September 2, 2025 at 12:26 p.m. (Al-Zibdeh Decl. P. 3.) Plaintiff failed to serve an objection to Chipotle's Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff. Due to Plaintiff's nonappearance, Chipotle was charged fees for the court reporter. (Al-Zibdeh Decl. P. 5.)

On December 5, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a protective order staying all discovery. On December 23, 2025, Chipotle noticed Plaintiff's deposition for January 9, 2026. (Id., P. 11.) Plaintiff failed to serve an objection, but emailed on January 7, 2026 that he would not attend. (Id., P. 12.)

On January 20, 2026, Chipotle served its third amended deposition notice for Plaintiff's deposition set for February 20, 2026. (Id., P. 14.) Plaintiff did not object. Plaintiff failed to respond to Chipotle's emails asking if he would attend and then failed to attend. (Id., P.P. 16, 18.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Plaintiff's request for entry of default preceded the answer. However, Plaintiff did not obtain entry of default against Defendant before Defendant filed its answer. Thus, Defendant is not in default.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant had notice of his medical conflicts before the depositions. However, at the January 8, 2026 status conference, plaintiff agreed he would sit for his deposition after a pending medical procedure. It is now the end of August, and Plaintiff has failed to show he cannot appear for deposition based on a medical condition. As Plaintiff was properly served with notices of depositions, failed to properly object, and failed to appear, the motion is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for deposition within 20 days of this order.

Sanctions Chipotle seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,360 against Plaintiff (14 hours at $240 an hour). As the motion is granted and Plaintiff did not provide substantial justification for the failure to appear for deposition, the request is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant's counsel $3,360 in sanctions within 30 days of this order.

CONCLUSION ¿ The court grants Defendant's motion to compel deposition. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant's counsel $3,360 in sanctions within 30 days of this order. Defendant shall give notice.

Case Number: 25STCV31438 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 735 Supply & Demand, Inc. v. Anthony Kaye, et al.

Plaintiff propounded Requests for Admission, Set One, on Defendant Yan-Lin Kaye ("Defendant"), on March 17, 2026. To the ten requests at issue, Nos. 11-14, 16-18, and 20-22, Defendant interposed objections only. The parties met and conferred by telephone on May 4, 2026, whereby Plaintiff agreed to narrow certain defined terms. Defendant served no supplemental responses.

On the same day the Opposition was due, Defendant served further responses to answer most of the requests at issue. However, Plaintiff argues in Reply that two requests remain deficient: Request No. 13, and Request No.

20.

RFA No. 13: Grant. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the narrowing of the terms moot Defendant's ambiguity argument and Defendant's response is not Code-complaint. As to the Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.060(g) objection, it provides: "A party requesting an admission of the genuineness of any documents shall attach copies of those documents to the requests, and shall make the original of those documents available for inspection on demand by the party to whom the requests for admission are directed." Here, there is no request for the genuineness of a document. Thus, this does not apply.

Further, the response does not fully answer the question. Code of Civil Procedure Section 2033.220(b) requires an answer to admit so much of the matter as is true, deny so much as is untrue, and specify so much as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge. The response admits a portion of the request (by limiting the response to "money consideration"), leaving substantial doubt as to whether the other portion of the request ("consideration" whether or not money) is true or not.

RFA No. 20: Grant. Defendant does not explain why the request would refer to Anthony Kaye and Yan-Lin Kaye in their capacity as officers when Plaintiff has agreed it means individually. Civil Code Section 3295(c) applies to punitive damages which are not at issue. The response states that Defendant lacks the personal knowledge sufficient to respond. "If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter." (CCP section 2033.220(c).) As Defendant fails to state a reasonably inquiry was made, the