Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 22STCV33223, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 22STCV33223    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff Art City Center, LLC (Art City) filed a Complaint against Defendants The Gap Inc. (Gap) and Does 1 through 30 alleging causes of action for: (1) Holding Over; (2) Breach of Contract; and (3) Unjust Enrichment. The claims arise from alleged violations of a commercial lease agreement for a property rented by Gap and owned by Art City Center (the Premises).

On April 3, 2023, Gap filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Yeezy Supply LLC and Ye, fka Kanye West (collectively, the Yeezy Parties), alleging causes of action for (1) Express Indemnity; (2) Equitable Indemnity; (3) Contribution; and (4) Breach of Contract. The Cross-Complaint asserts, in brief, that pursuant to the Strategic Agreement executed by and between Gap and Yeezy Supply, the Cross-Defendants are responsible for any alleged damages in the Complaint.

B. Relevant Procedural History

On December 29, 2023, Gap served the Yeezy Parties with a first round of discovery requests (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3.) On January 31, 2024, the Yeezy Parties responded to those requests with an agreement to produce documents, but did not actually produce the documents. (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3.) The Yeezy Parties’ counsel subsequently substituted out of the case, causing discovery delays. (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3.)

In February 2024, Art City requested a deposition date from Yeezy Supply. (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3; Zohar Decl. ¶ 3) In May 2024, Yeezy Supply’s second counsel committed to July 11, 2024, for its deposition. (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3; Zohar Decl. ¶ 3) Yeezy Supply again terminated its counsel, but new counsel confirmed that the deposition would still go forward (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 3; Zohar Decl. ¶ 3).

 On June 6 and June 21, 2024, Art City and Gap, respectively, served deposition notices on Yeezy Supply, seeking the deposition of its person most qualified and demanding the production of documents related to modifications the Yeezy Parties made to the Premises and concerning Ye’s ownership and control of Yeezy Supply. (Geibelson Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. A; Zohar Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Prior to the scheduled July 11 deposition, the Yeezy Parties’ new counsel withdrew.

C. Motion Before the Court

On July 25, 2024, Gap filed a motion to compel the deposition of person most knowledgeable of Yeezy Supply and requests for production of documents.

On August 14, 2024, Art City also filed a motion to compel the deposition of person most knowledgeable of Yeezy Supply and requests for production of documents.

As of the dates of these motions, no deposition has occurred, the Yeezy Parties have not produced the requested documents, and no new counsel for the Yeezy Parties has appeared. (Geibelson Decl. ¶¶ 7-8; Zohar Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)

On September 5, 2024, Art City filed a notice of non-opposition stating that Yeezy Supply has not filed an opposition to its motion.

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

If, [1] after service of a deposition notice, [2] 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, [3] without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, [4] 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, [5] 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, subd. (a) [Arabic numerals added for clarity].) 

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) 

The motion shall also 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, subd. (b)(2).) 

B. Analysis

Here, Yeezy Supply is a party to this case and was properly served with the deposition notices. (See Geibelson Decl., Ex. A; Zohar Decl., Ex. A.) The deposition notices were sufficient to compel Yeezy Supply’s attendance, testimony and document production at the deposition under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.280 subdivision (a) and 2025.220 subdivision (a)(4). Yeezy Supply did not serve any objections to the deposition notice and has failed to appear for examination or produce for inspection the documents described in the deposition notice.

Art City and GAP are clearly entitled to a deposition of Yeezy Supply (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010 [“Any party may obtain discovery within the scope delimited by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 2017.010), and subject to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2019.010), 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.”].) 

Further, there is good cause justifying the deposition and production of the requested documents. The deposition topics and document requests seek, generally: (1) information related to the condition, modifications, and maintenance of the Premises, (2) the corporate existence and records of Yeezy Supply, and (3) the terms of the relationship between Gap and the Yeezy Parties, as well as the relationship between Yeezy Supply and Ye. (See Geibelson Decl., Ex. A; Zohar Decl., Ex. A.)

Discovery concerning the alleged demolition and modifications at the Premises is directly relevant to the causes of action in both the Complaint and the Cross-Complaint for holding over, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Further, discovery concerning Yeezy Supply and the relationship between Ye and Yeezy Supply is directly relevant to Gap’s causes of action for indemnity and contribution.

Thus, Gap and Art City Center’s motions to compel deposition and requests for production of documents are GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion

The Gap, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable of Yeezy Supply, LLC and Requests for Production of Documents (RES ID # 2605) is GRANTED. 

Art City Center LLC’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Yeezy Supply, LLC and Requests for Production of Documents (RES ID # 3659) is GRANTED.