County v. Turtle Cove Marina

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

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.