Cheteni v. California Department of Education

Background

Discovery closed on October 17, 2025. The parties filed competing discovery motions, including motions to compel document production, motions concerning depositions, and requests for sanctions. The court decided the motions without oral argument and vacated the November 14, 2025 hearing.

Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Defendants sought an order preventing Cheteni from later delivering documents responsive to the first set of document requests covered by the court’s August 26, 2025 discovery order, specifically Requests Nos. 22 through 28. The court granted that request.

Defendants also sought an order requiring Cheteni to fully respond to the second and third sets of document requests. The court granted that request and ordered Cheteni to produce any documents responsive to those requests that had not already been produced by November 14, 2025.

Cheteni’s Motions

The court denied Cheteni’s October 15 motion to compel production and seek severe sanctions. The court found his six objections baseless, stated that defendants had provided thousands of pages of discovery and complied with their obligations, and found his assertions that defendants destroyed evidence or misrepresented matters to the court unsupported.

The court also denied Cheteni’s three October 24 motions concerning depositions and sanctions. One motion sought depositions of Randi Thompson and April Woodchecke after discovery had closed. The court found that Cheteni did not provide reasonable notice and did not comply with the local rule requiring a conference about scheduling before noticing a deposition of a party or affiliated witness.

The other two deposition motions sought to require William McGee and Mallia Vela to reappear. The court found that Cheteni had not supplied deposition transcripts or other record citations showing what questions were asked, what objections were made, or whether counsel improperly instructed the witnesses not to answer. The court also stated that, if Cheteni had accurately summarized the question to Vela, the objections to its form were proper and Cheteni had not shown that the privilege objection was improper.

The court denied Cheteni’s November 3 motion to compel further answers to interrogatories and requests for admissions and to seek issue sanctions. The court held that the motion was filed after the deadline for discovery motions under Local Rule 37-3 and contrary to the judge’s standing order requiring the parties to meet and confer before filing a discovery motion.

Conclusion and Additional Direction

The court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiff’s motions. It denied Cheteni’s request for an extension of discovery. The order also stated that defendants’ deadline to move for summary judgment or partial summary judgment was January 30, 2026, and that Cheteni would need to seek and obtain leave before filing another summary-judgment motion in the future.