This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/16/2018 at 17:13:45 (UTC).

RODNEY DOUGLAS CARR VS NOVO NORDISK INC ET AL

Case Summary

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.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4703

  • Filing Date:

    06/12/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

CARR RODNEY DOUGLAS

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

NOVO NORDISCK INC.

LAMANNA VINCENT

AGUILOS AMANDA

O'NEILL DAN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

RAND-LEWIS SUZANNE E. ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

NGUYEN NANCY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

5/15/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

10/18/2017: Minute Order

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

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

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

5/15/2018: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Notice

11/8/2018: Notice

Minute Order

10/30/2018: Minute Order

ORDER FOR REMAND

8/1/2018: ORDER FOR REMAND

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

DECLARATION OF SUZANNE E. RAND-LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANTS, NOVO NORDISK, INC., DAN O'NIELL, AMANDA AGUILOS, AND VINCENT LAMANNA

1/3/2018: DECLARATION OF SUZANNE E. RAND-LEWIS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANTS, NOVO NORDISK, INC., DAN O'NIELL, AMANDA AGUILOS, AND VINCENT LAMANNA

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/3/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

PROOF OF SERVICE

2/9/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE

DECLARATION OF VINCENZO LAMANNA IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2/9/2018: DECLARATION OF VINCENZO LAMANNA IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 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: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

2/9/2018: DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

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: 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

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VINCENZO LAMANNA'S 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

58 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/08/2018
  • DocketNotice (name extension) (of Informal Discovery Conference); Filed by Rodney Douglas Carr (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Status Conference - Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/30/2018
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference Re Removal to Federal Court)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketORDER FOR REMAND

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/01/2018
  • DocketOrder; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Off Calendar) -

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketMinute Order

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-05-31 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketNOTICE TO PLAINTIFF AND TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • DocketNotice of Removal to Federal Court; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
130 More Docket Entries
  • 10/16/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/05/2017
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/15/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Rodney Douglas Carr (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/12/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONTRACT (WRITTEN AND ORAL); ETC

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****4703    Hearing Date: July 09, 2020    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Carr vs. Novo Nordisk, Inc. et. al., Case No. ****4703

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.



related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where NOVO NORDISK INC. is a litigant