PoloDonkey argues that the service of the deposition subpoenas are costs associated with depositions and are allowable. In the alternative, PoloDonkey argues that the Court should award the costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5, subdivision (c)(2)-(4).

Defendants fail to provide any cogent argument of how the service of deposition subpoenas could constitute investigative expenses in preparing the case for trial. It is standard discovery and even if the obtained documents were not used at trial, counsel for PoloDonkey had a duty to conduct the discovery in order to properly represent PoloDonkey. "Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 permits the recovery of costs for the " '[t]aking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions' " as well as for " '[s]ervice of process by a public officer, registered process server, or other means.' " [Citation.]" (Garcia v. Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 819, 823-824.) "[C]ourts routinely refuse to tax costs on the ground that a deponent did not end up testifying or providing useful testimony at trial. [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 825.)

The Court has considered the arguments presented, as well as considered the nature of this case, and finds that the service of subpoenas were reasonably necessary costs. They will be allowed.

Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment

Defendants' motion for stay of enforcement of judgment is, as noted above, unopposed. "(a) Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.10, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial Court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial Court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order. "(b) When there is a stay of proceedings other than the enforcement of the judgment, the trial Court shall have jurisdiction of proceedings related to the enforcement of the judgment as well as any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order appealed from." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 916.)

"To prevent injuries " 'from the premature enforcement of a determination which may later be found to have been wrong,' " the law has developed a set of rules and procedures for staying enforcement of certain Court orders while they are reviewed on appeal. [Citation.] In California, a long-established set of rules governs stays of injunctive orders -- that is, orders to do something or to refrain from doing something. What rule applies depends on which kind of order it is. An injunction that requires no action and merely preserves the status quo (a so-called prohibitory injunction) ordinarily takes effect immediately, while an injunction requiring the Defendant to take affirmative action (a so-called mandatory injunction) is automatically stayed during the pendency of the appeal." (

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

Other rulings by Thomas Anderle Judge Thomas Anderle dossier Other Motion to Compel Discovery in SANTABARBARA All SANTABARBARA County rulings Other Civil Law & Motion cases Other granted rulings in SANTABARBARA

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

As noted above, on February 10, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the judgment. On February 20, 2026, Defendants filed their notice of designating record on appeal. The mandatory injunctions contained in the judgment are automatically stayed. Those include: (1) removal of the bamboo fence, (2) the mailbox removal and installation, (3) the signing of consent form and other documents required by the County, (4) assumption of maintenance obligations, and (5) relinquishment of certain property rights relating to the existing bridge access.

Defendants further ask this Court to exercise its discretion and stay the remaining provisions of the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 918. As the motion is unopposed, the Court will order the temporary stay of enforcement of the judgment, until such time as all rights to an appeal by Defendants are exhausted and a final, post-appeal judgment has been entered.

Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/20/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Lous Orozco: Oliver A. Taillieu, Elizabeth A. Hernandez, Ashley M. Akhavan, BD&J P.C. For Defendants Phillip Andrew Decker and Unico Engineering, Inc.: Craig J. Rolfe, Lydecker, LLP

For the reasons set forth below, the motion of Defendant to compel Plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for admission Nos. 7,8, and 9 is granted. Plaintiff shall provide further responses to the requests for admission, without objections, no later than June 1, 2026. If any response to the requests for admissions is anything other than an unqualified admission, Plaintiff shall provide further responses to form interrogatory No. 17.1, without objections, no later than June 1, 2026.

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Louis Orozco: On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff was on his bicycle traveling eastbound on Hollister Avenue when, at the same time and place, Phillip Andrew Decker, while in the course and scope of his employment with Unico Engineering Inc., (Unico) was operating a vehicle and exiting a driveway onto westbound Hollister Avenue. (Complaint, P. GN-1.) As Defendant Decker's vehicle turned onto Hollister Avenue, its left front corner struck the rear tire of Plaintiff's bicycle causing Plaintiff to fall to the ground and suffer severe injuries and damages. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Decker and Unico on March 11, 2025, alleging two causes of action: (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle. On May 1, 2025, Defendants each and separately filed their answers to Plaintiff's complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On February 24, Decker filed a motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to provide further responses to set one requests for admission (RFAs), nos. 7 through 9, and a concurrently served form interrogatory (FI) no. 17.1 Plaintiff opposes the motion.

"Civil discovery is intended to operate with a minimum of judicial intervention." (Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 402.) "It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act . . . that civil discovery be essentially self-executing." (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1434.) "Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), by a written request that any other party to the action admit the genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact, opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.

A request for admission may relate to a matter that is in controversy between the parties." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2033.010, italics added.)

As noted above, Decker seeks further responses to RFAs Nos. 7, 8, and 9. Those RFA's ask Plaintiff to admit: 7. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 immediately before the ACCIDENT occurred." 8. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 within five seconds before the ACCIDENT occurred." 9. "You were riding your bicycle in violation of California Vehicle Code Sec. 21650.1 at the time of the ACCIDENT." "A bicycle operated on a roadway, or the shoulder of a highway, shall be operated in the same direction as vehicles are required to be driven upon the roadway." (Veh. Code, Sec. 21650.1.)

injuries. (Petition, P. 8.) The terms of the settlement are that defendants will pay $20,000.00 in settlement of the claim, in one lump sum. (Petition, P. 10.) Sawyer's attorney requests that the court approve, to be deducted from the settlement, $2,500.00 for medical expenses owing, $5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and $1,381.49 as additional expenses. (Petition, P. 16.) The net balance of settlement proceeds to be paid to Sawyer totals $11,118.51. (Petition, P. 16.) Sawyer's attorney has provided all the information about himself that is required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Petition, P. 17.)

Sawyer through Carrie, requests that the balance of the settlement, after the above disbursements, be deposited in an insured account, with Wells Fargo Bank, located in Montecito, subject to withdrawal only upon Sawyer reaching 18 years of age or on authorization of the court. (Petitions, P. 18, subd. (b)(2) & Proposed Order, P. 9, subd. (b)(2).) The court has reviewed the petition, along with the attachments, and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of Sawyer. The court intends on executing the proposed orders submitted by Sawyer's counsel.

Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Tentative Ruling: Louis Orozco v. Phillip Andrew Decker, et al. Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel (4) Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Louis Orozco: Olivier A. Taillieu, Elizabeth A. Hernandez, BD&J, P.C. For Defendants Phillip Andrew Decker and Unico Engineering, Inc.: Matthew Banashek, Michael W. Irving, Banashek Irving & McNutt, LLP

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to requests for admission, set two, to Defendant is granted. On or before May 8, 2026, Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one requests for admission nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege.

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to for interrogatories, set two, to Defendant is granted. On or before May 8, 2026, Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker shall serve verified, code compliant further responses to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatory no. 17.1, as to requests for admission nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, and 34, without the objections overruled herein except as to those based on privilege.

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set two, to Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker is ordered off-calendar.

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Defendant Phillip Andrew Decker to compel Plaintiff to serve further responses to requests for admission nos. 7, 8, and 9, and concurrently served form interrogatory no. 17.1, is continued to May 20, 2026. On or before April 29, 2026, Defendant shall pay filing and other fees in accordance with the Court's ruling herein. On or before May 6, 2026, Defendant shall file and serve notice of payment of filing fees identifying the motion(s) for which fees have been paid and for which adjudication is sought.