CAO VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

While counsel for Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s counsel following Plaintiff’s non-appearance on 11/24/25, there is no indication Defendant’s counsel did so after the non-appearance on 12/22/25 as required by section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2).

As Defendant did not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (b)(2), the Court DENIES Defendant Rosmar Rodriguez Gasco’s motion to compel deposition.

2. CAO VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC 2024-01409133 MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION (ORAL OR WRITTEN)

Plaintiff Derick Cao’s Motion to Compel Defendant General Motors LLC to designate and produce for deposition, Defendant’s Person(s) Most Qualified on all categories identified in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Qualified for Defendant and Demand to Produce Documents at Deposition is GRANTED in part.

This hearing was continued due to the parties’ inadequate meet and confer efforts. (ROA 156 [5/5/26 Minute Order].) The parties subsequently agreed to a deposition date of 6/10/26 and Plaintiff served an amended deposition notice. (ROA 172 [Song Decl., ¶¶ 3- 4, Exs. 1-2, 4].) Since Plaintiff served an amended deposition notice for a future date, Defendant has not yet failed to comply with the operative deposition notice.

The parties are ORDERED to proceed with the 6/10/26 deposition on the agreed upon categories of examination and document requests.

If Defendant fails to appear or if Defendant appears and fails to answer questions and/or produce documents, Plaintiff’s is to file the appropriate motion.

3. BLATT VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE 2025-01481733 MOTION FOR PREFERENCE

Plaintiff Eleanor Blatt’s Motion for Trial Preference is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks an order for trial preference pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 36, subdivision (a). “(a) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: [¶] (1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. [¶] (2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” (§ 36(a).) The statute does not require “death or incapacity.” (Fox v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 529, 534 (Fox).) “Provided there is evidence that the party involved is over 70, all subdivision (a) requires is a showing that that party’s ‘health ... is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing [her] interest in the