ROSALIND ARBEL VS. DOMINIC D YIN ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC23604116 - September 3, 2025 Hearing date: September 3, 2025 Case number: CGC23604116 Case title: ROSALIND ARBEL VS. DOMINIC D YIN ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23604116 | Case Title: | | ROSALIND ARBEL VS. DOMINIC D YIN ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-03 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion For Order Protective Order | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for September 3, 2025, line 5. DEFENDANT TRADER JOE'S COMPANY'S Motion For Order Protective Order.

Defendant Trader Joe's Company's Motion for a Protective Order is DENIED. Defendant seeks an order barring the Chesley, Diouf, McMickin and Mesa-Wise and Owen Jensen depositions. Defendant moves under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420. Subdivision (b) of this section provides that a court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party or deponent from "unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense."

Defendant's motion was neither timely filed nor timely served. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b); Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a) [service by mail to place outside State adds ten court days to "any period of notice"].) see also Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(3)(B) [service by email adds two court days to "any period of notice"].) Defendant acknowledges as much. Thus, the motion is denied.

Defendant asks the court to excuse the deficiency because Plaintiffs experienced no prejudice. In fact, Plaintiffs' opposition is limited to the issue of untimeliness and does not address the merits of Defendant's motion. If the court were to proceed on this record, Plaintiffs would be prejudiced. Moreover, such extraordinary relief is not justified on this record.

Defendant had a full and fair opportunity to brief the merits of these depositions (surely, at least four of the five) in response to Plaintiffs' motion to compel the depositions, which were on file before Defendant's concededly defective motion. Defendant elected, however, to do nothing in response to Plaintiffs' several motions to compel. Where a party can act to avoid any prejudice, the party should so act. A party unwilling to help itself cannot reasonably expect the court to rescue it from its errors, especially where, as here, doing so would prejudice other parties and unreasonably protract proceedings.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.