The Court will proceed to address the motion to compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable (“PMK”).Ĭiv. The Court will only address one motion-the motion to compel PMK deposition-at this time for which Defendants may be deemed to have properly reserved and paid. Moreover, it compresses multiple motions which may require extensive attention into a single hearing where the Court’s calendaring policy is designed to relieve the effect of such impacted burdens. Not only does this deprive the Court of filing fees, combining multiple motions to discovery unfairly cuts in line in front of litigants who follow the Court’s guidelines and reserve a hearing date for a motion to compel per single set of discovery requests. Sanctions are to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 10 days.ĭefendants improperly combined three discovery motions into one motion, apparently only paid one filing fee, and only reserved one hearing date. Plaintiff’s counter-request for sanctions against Defendants and their counsel is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $422.75, jointly and severally. Defendants are to provide proof of payment of an additional $60 filing fee by August 4, 2023.ĭefendants’ motion to compel the deposition and request for sanctions is DENIED. The hearing on the motion to compel third party Aileen Servando McGann to comply with subpoena duces tecum is CONTINUED to Augat 8:30 a.m. Defendants are to provide proof of payment of an additional $60 filing fee by July 21, 2023. The hearing on the motion to compel further responses to form interrogatory No. Defendants also request sanctions.ĭefendants Haensich and Christina Suen improperly combined three discovery motions into one motion, apparently only paid one filing fee, and only reserved one hearing date. 17, and to compel third party Aileen Servando McGann to comply with subpoena duces tecum. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, its two former officers, engaged in direct competition with Plaintiff while still employed by Plaintiff, and induced multiple employees to resign from their employment with Plaintiff to go to work for a direct competitor in which Defendant Haensich has a direct pecuniary interest.ĭefendants move to compel the deposition of Plaintiff’s person most knowledgeable, to compel further responses to form interrogatory No. Per Rule of Court 3.1308, if notice of intention to appear is not given, the Court may adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling. Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to or telephonically at 21. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue. Counsel must contact the staff in Department 76 to inform the Court whether they wish to submit on the tentative, or to argue the matter. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.

Otx logistics readerlink