Judge Barbara M. Scheper, Case Number: 23STCV19064, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 23STCV19064, Date: 2023-11-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV19064 Hearing Date: November 1, 2023 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

View Pointe Leeward, LLC, CA vs. AMAYA, et. al., Case No. 23STCV19064

Tentative Ruling re: Defendant’s Motions to Compel Depositions

Defendant Erla Marisol Amaya (Defendant) moves to compel Plaintiff View Pointe Leeward, LLC (Plaintiff) to produce Ritesh Desai (Desai) and Jeet Jogani (Jogani) for deposition. The unopposed motions are granted. The Court awards monetary sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $2,825. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendant’s counsel $2,825 within thirty (30) days of today’s date.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral

deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code 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 Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)

The motion to compel deposition “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 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).)

Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action on August 10, 2023, concerning the property at 2959 Leeward Ave., #303, Los Angeles, CA 90005 (the Property). Defendant’s Answer asserts various affirmative defenses, including for Plaintiff’s alleged breach of the warranty of habitability.

On September 12, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff the Notice of Deposition of Jeet Jogani, setting Jogani’s deposition for September 20, 2023. (Medina Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Defendant states that Jogani is a managerial employee of JK Residential Inc., the property management company for the Property. (Motion p. 2:3.) Carlos Delgadillo, Plaintiff’s on-site resident manager at the Property, testified in a separate action that all email complaints from tenants of the Property are forwarded to Jogani; that Jogani and Delgadillo regularly communicate regarding maintenance; and that Jogani represents Plaintiff in communications with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department. (Medina Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, Ex. E [26], Ex. F.)

Also on September 12, 2023, Defendant served Plaintiff the Notice of Deposition of Ritesh Desai, setting Desai’s deposition for September 20, 2023. (Medina Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Desai verified Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action. (Comp. p. 9.)

On September 13, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel served an objection to both Notices that stated only, “Plaintiff objects to the taking of [Desai] and [Jogani] as neither person has knowledge of the specifics of this case. Only GULZAR RAJAKUMAR and CARLOS DELGADILLO are the persons most knowledgeable.” (Medina Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. B.) Neither Desai nor Jogani, nor Plaintiff’s counsel appeared for the depositions on September 20. (Medina Decl. ¶ 9.)

Defendant has shown good cause of the taking of the depositions, as each witness is “an officer, director, managing agent, or employee” of Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.280, subd. (a); Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 601 [“a third party (such as an independent contractor or former officer) may be deemed a party's ‘managing agent’ upon a factual showing that the deponent currently serves in that functional role”].) Plaintiff’s objection is meritless. Accordingly, the unopposed motions are granted.

If a motion to compel deposition is granted, “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are warranted against both Jogani and Desai for their failures to appear. For Jogani, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,625. (Medina Decl. ¶ 14.) For Desai, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $1,200. (Medina Decl. ¶ 13.) The requested sanctions are granted.