Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to Answer Deposition Questions and Produce Documents
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to Answer Deposition Questions and Produce Documents in Department 53
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Public Notice Civil Division Expansion of Law and Motion Calendar any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.
The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Courts Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.
The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:
https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25
SIP Address:
16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com
(833) 568-8864
ID: 16113421868
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf
A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required
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?”
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to Answer Deposition Questions and Produce Documents in Department 53
to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided
On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to Answer Deposition Questions and Produce Documents scheduled for 04/14/2025 is continued to 06/02/2025 at 01:30 PM in Department 53 at Hall of Justice.
Plaintiff Kristin Gordons (Plaintiff) Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to answer deposition questions and produce documents and for monetary sanctions is continued to June 2, 2025 to permit the parties to further meet and confer. At the outset, the Court must remind counsel that given the number of motions such as this which must be addressed on a daily basis, there are simply not enough judicial resources available to resolve each and every discovery dispute that could have and should have been resolved informally.
This serves to highlight the critical need for all counsel's legitimate, reasonable and good faith meet-and-confer efforts before filing any discovery motion. Although it dealt with a motion to compel answers to deposition questions, the decision of Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431 is instructive in that it clarifies that the meet-and confer process is not intended to be some perfunctory formality but rather it requires...a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. (Id., at 1438.)
The Court is not convinced that the Parties have fully engaged in the meet and confer process as contemplated by the rules, and it appears that this motion was filed prematurely before serious efforts at negotiation and informal resolution were completed. Indeed, after filing the motion, Plaintiff filed an amended statement as the parties had resolved disputes regarding unanswered deposition questions. Further, it appears that additional meet and confer efforts may address or narrow Plaintiff's concerns that she is missing responsive documents and privilege logs.
Under the circumstances before the Court, it appears that issues presented in the instant motion have been and may continue to be resolved short of judicial intervention. Counsel shall meet and confer in person or telephonically no later than April 28, 2025. After thoroughly meeting and conferring in an attempt to resolve each and every discovery request that the motion currently encompasses, and no later than May 12, 2025, counsel shall file a joint statement indicating which discovery requests have been resolved, and which requests (if any)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2022-00322703-CU-OE-GDS: Kristin Gordon vs. Mendocino Area Parks Association, a California non-profit corporation 04/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Sharon Comas to Answer Deposition Questions and Produce Documents in Department 53
remain outstanding. For each outstanding request, counsel shall set forth in the joint statement their respective positions, citing the relevant facts and authorities. Boilerplate or cut-and-paste arguments are strongly discouraged. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.