DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC22601123·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing about 1 year agoGRANTED in part, DENIED without prejudice in part

LISA ARNOLD VS. CLARA ANI BISHOP ET AL

Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Deposition Of Plaintiff And Production Of Documents

Hearing date
Jul 28, 2025
Department
301
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$15,000$3,500

Parties

PlaintiffLisa Arnold
DefendantClara Ani Bishop
DefendantEan Holdings, LLC
DefendantEnterprise Rent-A-Car Company Of San Francisco, LLC

Ruling

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Monday, July 28, 2025, Line 2. DEFENDANTS EAN HOLDINGS, LLC, AND ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF SAN FRANCISCO,LLC's Motion To Compel Deposition Of Plaintiff And Production Of Documents.

Defendants' motion to compel the deposition of plaintiff Lisa Arnold and for production of documents and sanctions is granted in part.

Defendants sought to depose Arnold and to meet and confer about convenient dates. Arnold unreasonably delayed responding with dates. Defendants' meet and confer on this issue was sufficient. Arnold is ordered to attend a deposition within three weeks of entry of this order on a mutually agreed date. The parties shall act reasonably in fixing the date. The parties may select a date outside of three-week window if they both agree.

Defendants move to compel production of documents specified in the notice of deposition. They have not sufficiently met and conferred about their document requests. Arnold's objections that producing documents responsive to the requests would result in annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression to her are overruled. The parties are ordered to meet and confer about Arnold's remaining objections within five business days of entry of this order. The motion to compel production of documents is otherwise denied without prejudice.

Defendants seek sanctions. Arnold's unreasonable delay in offering dates for her deposition is a misuse of the discovery process and the court finds no substantial justification. Defendants' requested amount of $15,000 is unreasonable for a motion like this one, and Defendants have achieved only partial success with this motion. The court orders Arnold to pay $3,500 to Defendants within 30 days of entry of this order.

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/CVA) | |

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