Rose v. Loren

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. B) September 11, 2026 DEPARTMENT B LAW AND MOTION RULINGS Attorneys who elect to submit on these published tentative rulings, without making an appearance at the hearing, may so notify the Court by communicating this to the Department's staff before the set hearing time. See, e.g., CRC Rule 324(b).

Roux v. 131 Olive Street, Case no. 23STCV31522 Hearing date September 11, 2026 Defendant 131 Olive Street's Omnibus Discovery Motion Plaintiffs Roux and Chestnut, successors in interest to decedent P. Chestnut, sue defendant 131 Olive Street, LLC for injuries to plaintiffs' decedent, who tripped and fell on defendant's property.

Defendant 131 Olive filed an omnibus discovery motion, now moot, and seeks monetary sanctions. See 8/6/26 Notice. Plaintiffs oppose. Defendant seeks sanctions of $3,210, arguing such are mandatory under Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2023.030 for misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant asserts plaintiffs failed to serve verified responses to discovery served on 7/23/24 and 12/11/25. See Decl. Karsaz, paras. 5-8. Defendant asserts no verified responses to the 12/11/25 discovery were received at the time this motion was filed. Id. at para.

16.

Verified responses to the 7/23/24 discovery were served 10/21/24 (Decl. Miles, para. 2, exh. A), and responses to the 12/11/25 discovery were served 1/30/26. Id. at para. 5, exh. D. Initial, unverified responses were served on 1/14/26, and plaintiffs' counsel informed defense counsel verifications would follow. Id. at paras. 3-4, exhs. B-C.

Plaintiffs argue no sanctions are warranted, as responses were served, and verification were be forthcoming. Plaintiffs argue defendant failed to meet-and-confer prior to filing this motion. Defendant argues the two-week delay and proximity to the then-trial date necessitated filing the motion, and sanctions are warranted. Decl. Miles, para.

8.

Defendant does not address purported meet-and-confer deficiencies. Defense counsel's one email addressed the the status of the verifications but did not identify the verification issue concerning the October 2024 responses and did not explain the relief it intended to seek. Id. at para.

9.

Defendant did not meaningfully engage in efforts to resolve the dispute before filing its motion. Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2016.040 requires a party moving to compel discovery to make a reasonable good faith attempts to resolve the issue informally before seeking court intervention. Under the circumstances, the court find defendant's one email is insufficient to justify an award of sanctions, as it appears additional meet-and-confer efforts could have avoided this motion. DENIED.

Case Number: 23VECV03196 Hearing Date: September 11, 2026 Dept: B Tentative Ruling Rose v. Loren, Case no. 23VECV03196 Hearing date September 11, 2026 Plaintiff Rose's Motion to Compel Depositions of PMKs Plaintiff Rose sues defendants Loren Properties, LLC, Westside Habitats, LLC, Mehta and Graham for injuries associated with an assault.

Plaintiff moves to compel the depositions of Loren Properties and Westside Habitats' employees and PMKs and for sanctions. The motion was scheduled on 6/25/26; the parties stipulated defense counsel "will produce Lopes[sic], Moseler, Hernandez, Garcia, Tucker and Mehta and the PMK of Westside Habitat for deposition within 30 days or shortly after at the agreement of counsel." 6/25/26 Min. Order.

Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel deposition and for sanctions, alleging defendants failed to comply with the stipulation. Defendants filed a late opposition. As plaintiff filed a substantive reply, the court considers the opposition on its merits.

A party may move for an order compelling the attendance and testimony of a deponent where the deponent fails to appear for examination following the service of a deposition notice. Code Civ. Proc. Sec.2025.450. The parties met and conferred on 7/2/26 regarding deposition dates. Decl. Smith, exh. E.

Plaintiff served amended or re-noticed depositions on 7/8/26, setting depositions for July 15, 24 and 29. Id. at exh. F. Plaintiff sent the zoom links for the depositions of Lopez, Mehta, Garcia and Hernandez on 7/14/26. Id. at exh. G. Defense counsel responded he was unavailable 7/15/26 due to a family medical emergency. Id. at exh. H.

Plaintiff moved forward with the depositions and recorded notices of non-appearance for all deponents. Id. at exh. I. Plaintiff recorded notices of non-appearance for Moesler and Tucker on 7/29/26, after defense counsel emailed plaintiff's counsel same-day, stating he missed the 7/29/26 deposition notices. Id. at exhs. K-L.

Defendant argues multiple proposed deposition dates were provided, before and after the 6/25/26 hearing. See Decl. Safarian, exhs. A-G. Defendant argues plaintiff filed this motion despite being offered further dates and asserts plaintiff's counsel refused to agree to any of the dates offered by defense counsel. Id. at exh. G.

Defendant asserts plaintiff's counsel failed to provide alternative dates despite being asked. Id. at exhs. G, J-K. Defendant asserts plaintiff failed to provide dates, despite stating this motion would be withdrawn if the depositions were completed prior to the hearing. Id. at exh. G.

Plaintiff argues deponents have yet to appear, and the agreement between defense counsel and plaintiff's former counsel Smith, who departed the firm, was not a binding stipulation. Plaintiff argues an order compelling depositions on specific dates and sanctions are warranted.

The papers demonstrate a breakdown in communication. While deponents failed to appear in July, plaintiff's prior counsel failed to offer other dates prior to filing this motion. This is concerning considering counsels' written agreement to take this matter off calendar should the depositions occur, limiting costs incurred by all parties.

The parties to meet and confer and select mutually agreeable deposition dates within 30 days of the hearing. The court will continue the issue of sanctions to the final status conference date, 11/6/26. Plaintiff may file a declaration 5 days prior regarding completion of depositions and whether sanctions are still requested. | Home -->)" -->