Motion to compel deposition of non-party Yehia Zakaria; Request for sanctions
Case No.:
Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF NON-PARTY YEHIA ZAKARIA I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Montano Investments, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against twelve Defendants arising from an alleged scheme to defraud Plaintiff out of real property through a fraudulent promissory note, bad faith foreclosure and stonewalling of legitimate sales. Plaintiff alleges 11 causes of action stemming from these alleged fraudulent and bad faith dealings. This action has been consolidated with another action concerning a related property.
On February 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed this instant motion to compel the deposition of party-affiliated witness Yehia Zakaria (“Deponent”) and for sanctions against Defendants Anchor Finance, LLC (“Anchor”), Corevest Loans, LLC (? Corevest ”) and Lima Loans, LLC (“Lima”) (collectively “Defendants”) totaling $1,819.00. Defendants oppose this motion. Plaintiff replies. II. LEGAL STANDARD “If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).) The motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) The motion must also contain a meet and confer declaration. (Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.450, subd. (b)(2).) If a motion is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction in favor of that party unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450 (g).) A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ.
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?”
Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The Court may order a third party to comply with a deposition subpoena upon any terms or condition as the court shall declare. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) C alifornia Rules of Court r ule 3.1346 states “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”
III. DISCUSSION a. Motion to Compel Deponent’s Deposition Plaintiff requests the Court order Deponent appear and testify at a deposition pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a), as Deponent is a “Member or Mana ger’ on Defendants’ most recently filed statements of information. (Mot. at p. 3 ¶¶ 6-7.) Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a) allows a party to compel the deposition of another party’s officer, director, managing agent or employee, if said individual fails to appear for a deposition without serving a valid objection.
The Court finds this request is without merit, as the evidence shows Deponent is not an agent or employee of Defendants. On November 21, 2025, Plaintiff served a deposition notice for Deponent on Defendants. The deposition was set to occur on December 4, 2025. On November 25, 2025, Defendants served timely objection s to the deposition, including that Deponent is no longer employed by any defendant. (Mot., De lman Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B.) The evidence shows parties did not meet and confer on the merits of the objections prior to the hearing date; Plaintiff merely reached out for confirmation of Deponent’s non-appearance. (Mot., Delman Decl. ¶ 4, Ex.
C.) Deponent did not appear at the deposition. On February 5, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel reached out to Defendants regarding the November objections. (Mot., Delman Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. D.) Plaintiff asserted Deponent was still listed as a principal of Defendants pursuant to a 2023 document, therefore making the noticed proper. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s counsel attests Defendants’ counsel did not otherwise correct this assertion prior to Plaintiff filing this motion. (Mot., Delman Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendants assert Deponent is not currently an employee or agent of Defendants.
Anchor’s m anager, Mark Grimm, attested Deponent terminated his position as Manager of Defendants effective January 30, 2025. (Opp., Grimm Decl. ¶ 3.) Deponent has not been affiliated with Defendants in any capacity since Janua ry 30, 2025. (Opp., Grimm Decl. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff argues Deponent is still an agent of Defendants, pursuant to an e-mail from Defendants’ counsel offering to produce’ various folks on Defendants’ side’ for deposition. (Reply., Suppl. Delman Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) T he Court finds the evidence shows Deponent is not an applicable party under Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a). Plaintiff relies upon a 2023 document, which is outdated pursuant to Grimm’s attestation that Deponent has not been employed by Defendants since January 2025. At no point during the deposition process was Deponent an employee or agent of Defendants. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s proposed stipulation shows Deponent is still involved with the company fails, as nothing within the text demonstrates Deponent is a manager, officer, employee, or agent of De fendants, subject to deposition under Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a). The e vidence suggests Deponent is a non-party to this action. A non-party must be served with a deposition subpoena in order to compel a non-party's deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (b).) The record
reflects Deponent was never served with the deposition notice or any subpoena. Additionally, there is no proof of personal service of this motion on Deponent, as required under California Rules of Court rule 3.1346. Neither the initial deposition nor this motion have been properly served upon Deponent. b. Sanctions The Court declines to impose sanctions on either Plaintiff or Defendants at this time. Plaintiff filed this motion under the belief Deponent was still an employee or agent of Defendants, pursuant to the most-recent, publicly available documents.
Defend ants provided substantial justification for their lack of compliance with the deposition notice, as well as proof of Deponent’s non-affiliation. In the future, the court expects that more robust effort s at meeting and con ferring will resolve issues like this one. IV. CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of deponent Yehia Zakaria is therefore DENI ED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Opposing party is ordered to give notice. DATED: May 18, 2026 __________________________ Hon.
Alexander C.D. Giza Judge of the Superior Court PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:? Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.? If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at [email protected] with the Subject line “SUBMIT’ followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.?
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.? If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. Case Number: 24STCV15952 Hearing Date: May 18, 2026 Dept: 730 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 7 30 ¿ LUIS ANTONIO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, vs.
ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., et al., Defendant s