JEANNE HAM PETO VS. THOMAS P. FAZEKAS ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC25622665 - June 22, 2026 Hearing date: June 22, 2026 Case number: CGC25622665 Case title: JEANNE HAM PETO VS. THOMAS P. FAZEKAS ET AL Case Number: | | CGC25622665 | Case Title: | | JEANNE HAM PETO VS. THOMAS P. FAZEKAS ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-22 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion And Notice Of Hearing To Compel Defendants Attendance At Deposition | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, June 22, 2026, Line 18, PLAINTIFF JEANNE PETO TRUSTEE OF THE PETO FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 17, 1997's Motion And Notice Of Hearing To Compel Defendants Attendance At Deposition.

Plaintiff Jeanne Ham Peto's motion to compel compliance with her deposition notices to Thomas Fazekas, Kathleen Fazekas, and Ella Ova is granted in part and denied in part as specified below. The court concludes both parties' positions lacked substantial justification in part and does not award sanctions.

Peto initially sought to depose Thomas Fazekas in June 2025. (Peto Decl., Ex. A.) The parties were unable to agree on a location and Peto does not present evidence continuing efforts after late June 2025 to schedule the deposition. (Id., Ex. B.) Peto took a noticed deposition off calendar in light of issues with Thomas Fazekas's written discovery responses (Peto Decl., para. 6.) The court granted a motion in September 2025 compelling Thomas Fazekas to provide further responses to Peto's requests for production of documents. (Id., para. 7.) Peto presents no evidence that she renewed efforts to depose Thomas Fazekas after the RFP motion was granted.

On May 12, 2026, Peto noticed the depositions of Thomas Fazekas, Kathleen Fazekas, and Ella Ova. The notices include document requests. (Peto Decl. Exs. H-J.) The Fazekases served objections, including to the document requests. (Id., Ex. K.) Over the next eight days, the parties discussed but did not agree on dates, and the Fazekases' counsel represented that he does not represent Ova. (Peto Decl., Ex. G.) Peto filed this motion on May 22, 2026.

The court first concludes that Peto's meet and confer efforts were adequate under the circumstances; Peto was looking for dates and the Fazekases have yet to provide them. Trial is presently set for July 27, 2026. There is a motion to continue the trial on file but the court assumes the current trial date until a different date is set by Department 206.

The court orders Thomas Fazekas and Kathleen Fazekas to appear for deposition on a mutually agreed date within three weeks of this order. The court does not order the Fazekases to comply with the document requests contained in the notices. A motion to compel production of documents pursuant to a deposition notice is a motion requiring a separate statement, which Peto does not provide. (See Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).)

With respect to Ova, Peto contends she is a party-affiliated witness for whom no subpoena is required. "The service of a deposition notice under Section 2025.240 is effective to require any deponent who is a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party to attend and to testify, as well as to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying." (Code Civ. Proc., Section 2025.280, subd. (a).) Peto states that "Ella Ova is Fazekas's bookkeeper.

She has been emailing me and copying Fazekas's attorney demanding payment for issues allegedly related to the Property as recently as April 7, 2026. She is a party-affiliate witness." (Peto Decl., para. 16.) That Ova has been emailing attorneys for Peto and the Fazekas does not establish that she is an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party; independent contractors sometimes act as bookkeepers as well. Ova has not been served with the motion to compel, there is no proof she was served with a notice of deposition, and the Fazekases' counsel confirmed he does not represent her.

The motion is denied as to Ova.

The court has ordered partial relief but concludes that both parties' positions lacked substantial justification in some respects. The court does not award sanctions.

(Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |