On 06/12/2017 RODNEY DOUGLAS CARR filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against NOVO NORDISK INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is BARBARA M. SCHEPER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
BARBARA M. SCHEPER
CARR RODNEY DOUGLAS
DOES 1 THROUGH 100
NOVO NORDISCK INC.
RAND-LEWIS SUZANNE E. ESQ.
4/12/2018: DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF, RODNEY DOUGLAS CARR, IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
5/15/2018: Minute Order
5/15/2018: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
10/18/2017: Minute Order
10/30/2018: Minute Order
2/9/2018: DECLARATION OF DARYL S. LANDY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
2/9/2018: SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
3/1/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
4/2/2018: NOVO NORDISK, INC., DAN O?NEILL, AND AMANDA AGUILOS? ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
4/12/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
4/18/2018: NOTICE OF ERRATA TO DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER ETC.
5/2/2018: ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE
1/29/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' IMPROPER AND UNTIMELY MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; ETC.
2/6/2018: Minute Order
1/4/2018: Minute Order
10/25/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Notice (name extension) (of Informal Discovery Conference); Filed by Rodney Douglas Carr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re Removal to Federal Court)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER FOR REMANDRead MoreRead Less
Order; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 30; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Off Calendar) -Read MoreRead Less
Minute OrderRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-05-31 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURTRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Removal to Federal Court; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Receipt; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENTRead MoreRead Less
Case Management Statement; Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Rodney Douglas Carr (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONTRACT (WRITTEN AND ORAL); ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC664703 Hearing Date: July 09, 2020 Dept: 30
Carr vs. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et. al., Case No. BC664703
Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Deposition
Defendant Novo Nordisk, Inc. (NNI) moves to compel the deposition of Plaintiff. The motion is granted for the reasons stated in the moving papers.
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . ., 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 of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)
“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)(2).) The motion must set forth facts showing both good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).)
On October 18, 2018, NNI served its Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff, with a deposition date for December 4, 2018 (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Plaintiff served objections and stated that until all the discovery issues regarding NNI’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery had been resolved, Plaintiff would not appear for Defendant’s deposition. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. B.)
On March 29, 2019, NNI served an Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff, with a deposition date scheduled for April 8, 2019. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. C.) On April 5, 2019, Plaintiff objected to the amended deposition notice, in which he reiterated his refusal to appear for his own deposition until NNI had complied with all of Plaintiff’s discovery demands. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. D.)
On February 7, 2020, NNI served a Second Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff and Requests for Production of Documents, with a deposition date scheduled for February 18, 2020. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 14, Exh. F.) Plaintiff provided the same response as to the two previous notices of deposition. (Nguyen Decl., ¶ 15, Exh. G.)
Plaintiff argues that NNI has “dumped” 27,000 documents on Plaintiff, and that there should be no deposition taken of Plaintiff until the documents are properly identified. However, Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that Plaintiff’s deposition cannot proceed until such time as Plaintiff’s counsel is satisfied with NNI’s discovery responses. In fact, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion related to NNI’s production of documents on February 5, 2020. Plaintiff’s objections have no merit, and his opposition has virtually no argument or authority to support his contentions. Plaintiff does not even try and justify the boilerplate objections that he served on NNI in response to the deposition notices.
Plaintiff is ordered to sit for his deposition within thirty (30) days of today’s date. Counsel to meet and confer to agree upon a specific date.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases