Motion to Compel

Cal. Super. - 2nd Dist.October 19, 2016

123 Judge SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, TENTATIVE RULINGS EVENT DATE: EVENT TIME: VENTURA DIVISION August 22, 2019 08/26/2019 08:20:00 AM DEPT.: 21 COUNTY OF VENTURA JUDICIAL OFFICER: Jeffrey G. Bennett CASE NUM: CASE CATEGORY: EVENT TYPE: CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty 56-2016-00488064-CU-BC-VTA ROSS VS JOSEPH Motion to Compel - Joseph tp provide answers to deposition questions and produce documents, and for CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel, 05/08/2019 stolo Cases including ex parte matters will be called at 9 a.m. Please check in with the courtroom clerk by 8:45 a.m. If appearing by Court Call, please call in between 8:35 and 8:45 a.m. If you wish to submit on the court's tentative decision, please send an email to the court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov. Absent waiver of notice and in the event an order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Feinman to provide responses to deposition questions and for leave to take second deposition The court intends to deny Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defendant Feinman to respond to deposition questions in a second deposition. Plaintiffs have already deposed Mr. Feinman's for seven hours, the limit (without court order) set out at CCP §2025.290(a). (Opposition at p. 12). In the motion, Plaintiffs ask for "additional time" (3 hours) to depose Mr. Feinman. (Motion at p. 15). The questions that Plaintiffs want Mr. Feinman to answer concern Mr. Feinman's family trust. Specifically, Plaintiffs complain that Mr. Feinman refused to identify the assets in the trust and to name the beneficiaries to the trust. (Plaintiffs' Separate Statement, Questions 1, 6, and 7). Presumably, had Mr. Feinman been willing to answer those questions, Plaintiffs would have sought additional information about the trust through additional questioning. Plaintiffs acknowledge that Mr. Feinman has produced certain limited documentation and provided some information regarding the trust, but they assert that they are entitled to examine the "actual evidence" in this case. The court agrees and has issued a tentative ruling granting Plaintiffs' motion to compel Mr. Feinman to respond to Plaintiffs' document demands concerning the estate planning documents (75-78). The deposition questions at issue become moot upon Mr. Feinman's production of the trust documents; there is no better evidence than the instruments themselves. The court does not award sanctions to either side. Moving party to give notice. TENTATIVE RULINGS Page: 1