On 05/08/2017 LUIS PINEDA filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against MODERN INTERIORS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY E. KENDIG and ELAINE LU. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HOLLY E. KENDIG
DOES 1 TO 20
YOUNESSI RAMIN R. ESQ.
MARTIN LILIUOKALANI H.
YOUNESSI RAMIN RAY ESQ.
ORTIZ SAMANTHA LAUREN
SABA RYAN DONALD ESQ.
DIOGUARDI FRANCESCA NOEL
11/13/2017: DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC
1/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' PURPORTED OFFER TO COMPROMISE
1/25/2018: STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RE CONFIDENTIALITY OF DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION
5/1/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
8/17/2018: DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PLA1TTIFF LUIS PINEDA TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IN DEPOSITION; DECLARATION OF FRANCESCA DIOGUARDI; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMO
8/31/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH/MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO WILMINGTON HEALTH CENTER
11/30/2018: Notice of Ruling
12/7/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice
1/18/2019: Motion to Compel
2/27/2019: Minute Order
5/13/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication - Not Held - Rescheduled by PartyRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Plaintiff's Independent Mental Examination) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Protective Order - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel Deposition) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Order (Re: PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA?S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIOR?S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA AND PRODUCTION OF DO); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Deposition; Hear...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Opposition (TO DEFENDANT MODERN INTERIORS? MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND PLAINTIFF?S REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 4,300); Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Stipulation - No Order (Re Briefing Schedule on Defendant's motion for protective order)Read MoreRead Less
Reply (TO DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA?S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF MEGAN PADILLA, AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF 4,860.00 AGAINST DE); Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 26, Elaine Lu, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( to Advance Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit Deposition of Megan Padilla and Shorten Time for the Hearing and Briefing Schedule on the Motion for Protective Order) - Held - Motion GrantedRead MoreRead Less
Declaration; Filed by Modern INteriors (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & OSC RE PROOF OF SERVICERead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF GOV'T CODE 1294O ET SEQ. ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Luis Pineda (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC660651 Hearing Date: March 04, 2020 Dept: 26
MODERN INTERIORS, et al.,
Case No.: BC660651
Hearing Date: March 4, 2020
[TENTATIVE] order RE:
PLAINTIFF LUIS PINEDA’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF Alex skoda, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
This is a wrongful termination action concerning age and disability discrimination. The Second Amended Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff Luis Pineda (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Defendant Modern Interiors (“Defendant”) as an installer and foreman. Plaintiff had emergency heart surgery, which affected his ability to perform his work and resulted in a disability. Plaintiff’s disability required him to be off work while he recovered. However, while Plaintiff was on disability leave, Defendant terminated his employment. In addition, Defendant violated Labor Code sections by failing to pay wages, failing to pay overtime, failing to provide rest periods, and failing to provide itemized wage statements.
On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff sent notice for a second deposition of Alex Skoda (“Skoda”) set for September 5, 2019 with a request for production of documents. (Carthorn Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Skoda is an employee of Defendant. On August 29, 2019, Defendant responded with objections to the request for production of documents and stated that it had already produced documents related to some of the requests. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) On September 5, 2019, Skoda appeared for the deposition but was unable to answer a few questions regarding 2016 work schedules as the documents provided by Defendant for this deposition were incomplete. (Nakahiro Decl. ¶ 6.)
On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Skoda and production of documents, and request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $5,560.00 against Defendant. On February 20, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition stating that Plaintiff never served any notice for a third deposition, that a new deposition has been scheduled for February 27, 2020, and that the requested documents have been provided. On February 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a reply that does not contest these assertions in Defendant’s opposition. Instead, Plaintiff’s reply simply states that Plaintiff has not had enough time to review the produced records, and that this motion is necessary to assure that the scheduled deposition occurs.
Compel Deposition and Production of Documents
“Any party may obtain discovery . . . by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.010.) “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, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).)
“The motion shall set forth the following: (1) The motion shall 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. (2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1)-(2).)
As a preliminary matter, pursuant to the parties stipulation and the minute order on September 9, 2019, the discovery and motion cut-off date has been extended with respect to the new trial date of July 6, 2020, only with respect to job schedules, crew schedules, and timecards and the depositions of Alex Skoda and Donald Bigler with respect to these topics.
This motion is within the time restraints of discovery as it falls directly in the stipulated categories of discovery.
Skoda did appear for his September 9, 2019, deposition, and Plaintiff has not served any notice for a third deposition of Skoda. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiff does not contest or provide proof otherwise. Further, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to serve a deposition notice for a third deposition of Skoda, the parties voluntarily scheduled a third deposition of Skoda for February 27, 2020. Plaintiff does not assert that the third deposition did not go forward on February 27, 2020, as scheduled.
As Plaintiff has never served a notice of a third deposition, and in any event, Skoda sat for a third deposition on February 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the deposition of Alex Skoda is DENIED. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).)
Compel Production of Documents
Defendant states that on February 19, 2020, it produced all of the at-issue documents that Plaintiff requested. (Dioguardi Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff does not dispute this assertion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is DENIED AS MOOT.
“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(g)(1).)
As Plaintiff did not notice a deposition for Skoda, sanctions would be inappropriate under this section. Further, the Court finds that sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 are unwarranted as Defendant has produced the at-issue documents and has provided Skoda for a third deposition before the hearing date for this motion despite Plaintiff’s failure to serve notice for a third deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.
CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Alex Skoda’s deposition is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s production of documents is MOOT. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Plaintiff is to give notice of this order, and file proof of service of such.
DATED: March 4, 2020 ___________________________
Judge of the Superior Court