Avila v. California Premier Roofscapes, Inc., et al

14. Avila v. California Premier Roofscapes, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2425309 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition 6/4/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 Tentative Rulings As to the Request for Judicial Notice: Defendants seek judicial notice of Google Map images of certain locations in Ontario, California. (Exhs. 6-7.) The Court would DENY. (See Bridges v. Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 104, 117 [printout from website “not the type of agency action we may judicially notice”]; also Taylor v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 801, 806, FN 3 [court denied request for judicial notice of website where information on website irrelevant to resolution of dispute].)

As to the Motion: The Court would GRANT as to categories 5-7 but deny as to the remainder. Further, the Court would limit the deposition to no more than an hour and a half in duration, and, given the attorney acrimony, it would suggest the parties consider holding the deposition at the Court location (within a deliberation or conference room). Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ counsel will meet and confer on a mutually agreeable date and take the deposition no later than within the next thirty (30) days.

Analysis

Here, Defendants move to compel Plaintiffs’ deposition because Plaintiff has failed to respond to examination at the first and second deposition. Plaintiff claims he sustained personal injuries due to a work-related incident that is currently covered under workers’ compensation. At the deposition, Plaintiff’s counsel refused to permit Plaintiff to respond to questions regarding his ability to find gainful employment, pre-existing medical conditions, and the factual details surrounding the accident. Plaintiff’s counsel made more than 200 objections during the deposition.

Defendant seeks to inquire further on the following: (1) questions regarding Plaintiff’s employment from 1991 to 2006; (2) questions regarding Plaintiff’s ability to understand, speak, read and write English; (3) questions regarding Plaintiff has been convicted of a crime that would prevent him from obtaining employment; (4) questions whether Plaintiff’s immigration status would prevent him from obtaining employment; (5) questions regarding Plaintiff’s consideration and participation in vocational rehabilitation programs; (6) questions regarding Plaintiff’s understanding of what caused his injuries; (7) questions regarding the address of the exact location of where the accident occurred based on google maps; and (8) questions regarding where on Plaintiff’s body the roofing paper struck him.

Plaintiff claims this has already more time than allotted pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., §2025.290, but, notably, the section also allows the Court to provide additional time.

The Court is disinclined to allow further inquiry into the following: As to categories one (employment) and two (English proficiency), the Court finds his prior responses sufficient. (See, e.g., Vol.2, Depo., 137:10-24 [as to one].) As to categories three (crim. history), the Court finds that response that he has no felonies is sufficient. (Vol.1, Depo., 59:21-62:10.) The Court would find insufficient basis for further inquiry as to category four (immigration status). (Evid. Code, § 351.2 [“. . . nor shall discovery into a person’s immigration status be permitted.”].) As to category eight (roofing paper), the Court would find the prior answers sufficient. (E.g., Depo., 69:8-25.)

However, the Court would allow additional inquiry into the following: As to category five (technical rehab), there were improper objections and the Court sees no basis for the instruction not to answer. Similarly, as to category six (understanding of injuries), the instruction not to answer is not well founded. The inquiry is as to discoverable information, and the assessment of attorney-client and work-product privileges appear improper for this area of inquiry. Finally, again similarly, as to category seven (exact location of accident), the inquiry seek discoverable information. The Court would allow further inquiry as to these topics. *** *** ***

14. Avila v. California Premier Roofscapes, Inc., et al, Case No. CIVSB2425309 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Response to Requests for Production, Set One Defendants’ Motion to Compel Response to Special Interrogatories, Set Two 6/4/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17 Tentative Ruling The Court would find the motions MOOT.

Analysis

Defendants move to compel responses from Plaintiff to Requests for Production, Set One (RFP1) and Special Interrogatories, Set 2 (SROG2). At issue are RFP1, numbers 1-5 and SROG2, numbers 27-53. Relevant here, Defendants served the discovery on November 20, 2025. The discovery response deadline was continued by agreement to January 9, 2026. On January 5, 2026, when Plaintiff asked for an additional extension, Defendants refused. Thus, to preserve objections, Plaintiff provided objection-only responses on January 9, 2026.

These motions to compel were filed on February 6, 2026, but on or about March 31, 2026, Plaintiff served verified supplemental responses. (Rafael Decl., ¶12 & Exh. E.) Thus substantive, supplemental responses have been provided and the motions are moot.

As to sanctions, the Court would decline to impose them. It appears that there is substantial justification in that Plaintiff sought extension of the deadline before providing objection-only responses and was intent on providing substantive responses. Moreover, the Court notes that no separate statements were provided. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(2) & (3) [requiring separate statement when compelling further responses].) Here, it appears that movants moved as if there had been no prior responses. While the initial responses were couched as objectiononly, they still existed. *** *** ***

4