Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Defendant Apollo Imports, Inc., D.B.A. Apollo Scooters Produce Its Person(S) Most Qualified For Deposition
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23607295 - June 5, 2025 Hearing date: June 5, 2025 Case number: CGC23607295 Case title: ELISE WILLIAMS ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23607295 | Case Title: | | ELISE WILLIAMS ET AL VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-06-05 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Notice Of Motion And Motion To Compel Defendant Apollo Imports, Inc., D.B.A. Apollo Scooters Produce Its Person(S) Most Qualified For Deposition | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Thursday, June 05, 2025, line 5, PLAINTIFFS ELISE WILLIAMS, ZACHARY WILLIAMS' Motion To Compel Defendant Apollo Imports, Inc., D.B.A. Apollo Scooters Produce Its Person(S) Most Qualified For Deposition
The court denies without prejudice the motion to compel the deposition of a PMQ of defendant Apollo Imports Inc. The court is aware that a bankruptcy stay affecting a codefendant (here, Leitmotif Services LLC) does not automatically stay proceedings against those defendants not in bankruptcy. With the City's PMQ, the court weighed the risk of duplicative depositions against the right to liberal discovery, and its determination in part was guided by its judgment that the risk of duplication was attenuated by the difference between the City's defenses and Leitmotif's.
Here, the court strikes the balance differently. Apollo and Leitmotif's positions and defenses appear sufficiently similar that there is a risk of wasteful and duplicative discovery if the deposition goes forward while proceedings against Leitmotif are stayed. Moreover, there is very little time for deposition before a significant period of unavailability of counsel. (See Swallow Dec. paras. 15 and 16.) And trial, although it is approaching, is not imminent. The court therefore denies the present motion to compel Apollo's deposition without prejudice to a renewed notice after July 18. The court encourages Plaintiff to seek to lift the stay as to Leitmotif.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) 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.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
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?”
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. = (302/CVA) | |