Judge John C. Gastelum

The court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time noticed for the hearing, unless the Court has stated that the matter is off calendar. Do not call the department to verify if you should appear or not. Please read below for the information.  If you would prefer to submit to the Court’s tentative without oral argument, advise all counsel first to find out if all parties are submitting and then moving party is to telephone the clerk at (657)622-5213 with the status of all parties. If the moving party has submitted the matter and there are no appearances by any party at the hearing, the tentative ruling will be the final ruling. Rulings are normally posted on the Internet by 4:30 p.m. on the day before the hearing.  Generally, motions will not be continued or taken off calendar after the tentative has been posted. The moving party shall give notice of the ruling.


September 25, 2017




Case Name






The Versailles Homeowners Association vs. Rolfes



(1) Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena (2) CMC


Tentative Ruling:  Plaintiff The Versailles Homeowners Association’s unopposed Motion to Compel Third-Party Douglas Clark to Comply with Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED.  This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.  The motion concerns the deposition subpoena for the production of business records on Third-Party Douglas Clark.  Mr. Clark is the Secretary of Cross-Defendant DM Construction, and Plaintiff is seeking production of documents of any insurance records of DM Construction within Mr. Clark’s possession from 2014 to 2016 (subject time period). 


The court finds Moving Party has sufficiently demonstrated a basis to compel compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 and GRANTS the unopposed motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena.  The court orders Douglas Clark to comply with the Deposition Subpoena issued by Plaintiff The Versailles Homeowners Association on May 15, 2017, within 30-days.


The court declines to issue monetary sanctions at this time. Moving Party Plaintiff seek monetary sanctions against Third-Party Douglas Clark in the amount of $1,185.00, as follows: (1) 4.5 hours at $250/hr preparing the “meet and confer” letter, the moving papers, and appearing at the hearing; and (2) $60 in filing fee. 


Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2(a) provides: “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion [made under Section 1981.7], including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”


Here, there is insufficient showing that the motion was “opposed in bad faith or without sufficient justification.”  In addition, the court does not find the third-party engaged in the “misuse of the discovery process” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 as requested by Plaintiff.  Accordingly, the court declines to issue monetary sanctions against the Third-Party.


Prevailing Party is to give notice.