Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Turtle Cove’s PMK
TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR June 17, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.
You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).
If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.
If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.
You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE
RULING.
County v. Turtle Cove Marina
__________________________________________________________________________
TENTATIVE RULING(S):
Plaintiff San Bernardino County’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Turtle Cove’s
PMK. Defendant Turtle Cove opposes. Plaintiff County relies.
Meet and Confer
The County seeks to compel Turtle Cove’s deposition under Code of Civil Procedure section
2025.450, subdivision (a). However, section 2025.450 is inapplicable because Turtle Cove
served a timely objection to the deposition notice. Therefore, the County’s motion is best subject
to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, which requires a declaration that complies with
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
2026.040, subdivision (a). The County did not provide the required declaration.
The County’s declaration does not provide facts to show it made “a reasonable and good faith
attempt, either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference, to informally resolve each issue
presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).)
Although the County failed to properly meet and confer, the Court elects to consider the merits of
this motion to prevent the need for any further law and motion on this issue.
Merits
The County argues that Turtle Cove’s deposition must be compelled because it properly noticed
the deposition, the deposition sought testimony on relevant topics, and Turtle Cove failed to
appear.
In opposition, Turtle Cove argues that the County’s motion should be denied because Turtle
Cove timely objected to the deposition notice and that it was working to identify and prepare a
new individual to testify. When it identified the alternate person most knowledgeable, after the
County’s motion was filed, Turtle Cove offered the County dates for the deposition to go forward
but the County did not respond. (Grijalva Decl. Exh. I.)
In reply, the County argues that Turtle Cove’s objections did not excuse it’s attendance at the
deposition on January 20, 2026, that Turtle Cove’s offers to produce a deponent do not render
the County’s motion moot, and that the County cannot go forward with Turtle Cove’s deposition
because Turtle Cove has not yet produced documents it was ordered to produce on May 7,
2026.
The County’s argument that Turtle Cove’s objections did not excuse Turtle Cove’s non-
appearance is without merit. Turtle Cove timely objected and stated that it and its counsel were
unavailable on the date set and made it clear that it was not going to appear. At that point, the
County had an obligation to meet and confer, in good faith, by telephone, video conference, or in
person, to resolve the objections and to obtain a new deposition date. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
2025.480, subd. (b), 2016.040, subd. (a).)
Further, the County’s argument that it cannot now take the deposition because Turtle Cove has
not yet complied with a separate discovery order is improperly included in the reply. To the
extent the County believes Turtle Cove is not in compliance with a separate court order, the
County can bring an appropriate motion addressed to that issue.
Given that there is no dispute that Turtle Cove’s deposition should go forward, and that Turtle
Cove has offered deposition dates, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer in the
next 5 days to come to a mutually agreeable date for the PMK’s deposition within the next 30
days.
Sanctions
The County seeks $2,193.50 in sanctions reflecting 10.7 hours of attorney time. The attorney
time consists of 7.2 hours to prepare the motion, 3 hours to review the opposition and prepare
the reply, and.5 hours to appear at the hearing at a billing rate of $205. (Okada Decl. ¶
13.) Given the death of Turtle Cove’s person most knowledgeable and the County’s failure to
comply with its meet and confer obligations, the Court DENIES the County’s request for
sanctions as unjust under the circumstances.