Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: March 13, 2025

Case Name: WhiteBird, Inc. v. Concerning Landscape, Inc.

Case No.: 24STCV32565

Matter: Motion for Leave to Conduct Anti-SLAPP Discovery

Moving Party: Plaintiff Whitebird, Inc.

Responding Party: Defendants No Canyon Hills, Devlin Gandy, Devon Christian, Emma Kemp, and Matthew Altman

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct discovery on Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion is granted in part.

This is a trespass action. The Complaint alleges Defendants Concerning Landscape, Inc. dba No Canyon Hills (NCH), Devlin Gandy, Devon A. Christian, Matthew Altman, and Emma Kemp (Defendants) have repeatedly trespassed by physically entering Plaintiff Whitebird, Inc.’s property without Plaintiff’s consent and installing surveillance cameras.

On February 13, 2025, Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.

Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for leave to conduct discovery on Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike. Defendants oppose this motion.

The Court grants the motion for leave to conduct discovery in part.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for leave to obtain discovery in opposition to Defendants’ special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP).

The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion stays discovery in an action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).) However, on noticed motion and “for good cause shown,” the court “may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding” the statutory discovery stay. (Ibid.)

“ ‘[G]ood cause’ ” in this context requires the plaintiff show that, “ ‘the specified discovery is necessary for the plaintiff to oppose the [anti-SLAPP] motion and is tailored to that end.’ ” (Balla v. Hall (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 652, 692.) That is, “[i]f the plaintiff makes a timely and proper showing in response to the motion to strike, that a defendant or witness possesses evidence needed by plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must be given the reasonable opportunity to obtain that evidence through discovery before the motion to strike is adjudicated.” (Layfayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 855, 868.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks limited discovery on its prima facie case of Defendants’ trespass. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to propound a Request for Admissions (with 7 RFAs), a Request for Production of Documents (with 8 document demands), and a set of Special Interrogatories (with 8 interrogatories). (Kassis Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Plaintiff also intends to issue deposition notices on the parties and subpoenas on all the declarants that submitted declarations in support of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.

In evaluating whether good cause exists for the discovery request, the court in The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156 agreed that in assessing the need for the discovery requested, the trial court should consider to what extent the information sought is within the knowledge of the defendant, and also the degree of need for the discovery to meet the issues raised by the pending special motion to strike. (Id. at p. 1162.)

Here, Defendants take the position that that there was no trespass because Plaintiff consented to the entry upon Plaintiff’s property. (Anti-Slapp Mot., 22:19-23:22.)

The right to exclude persons from using private property is a fundamental aspect of private property ownership. (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 245, 258 [citing Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, 435].) To bring a claim for trespass, an entry must be without permission and an unlawful interference with that right of possession of property. (Cobb v. City of Stockton (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 65, 73; Staples v. Hoefke (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1397, 1406.)

The elements of trespass are: (1) the plaintiff's ownership or control of the property; (2) the defendant's intentional, reckless, or negligent entry onto the property; (3) lack of permission for the entry or acts in excess of permission; (4) harm; and (5) the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm. (Ralphs Grocery Co. v. Victory Consultants, Inc., supra, at pp. 261-262.) “The essence of the cause of action for trespass is an ‘unauthorized entry’ onto the land of another. Such invasions are characterized as intentional torts, regardless of the actor's motivation. Where there is a consensual entry, there is no tort, because lack of consent is an element of the wrong.” (Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 16-17.)

On this basis, Plaintiff argues that there is good cause to take discovery because there is evidence that is only in Defendants’ possession. Specifically, Defendants have taken the position that they had Plaintiff’s consent to be on Plaintiff’s property based on what Defendants’ observed and experienced while on the property. (Anti-SLAPP Mot., 22:19-23:22.) Plaintiff argues that it needs discovery to understand the basis for Defendants’ assertions regarding consent contained in the 18 declarations submitted in support of the anti-SLAPP motion. Plaintiff contends that this discovery will bear on whether Defendants reasonably understood that they had been given consent to enter the property.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to obtain limited discovery.

The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for discovery as follows: Plaintiff may propound the following discovery: (1.) Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions (Set Two); (2.) Request for Production of Documents (Set Three), RFP Nos. 39, 40, 43-45; and (3.) Special Interrogatories (Set Three) Interrogatories Nos. 27, 30-34. (Kassis Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. E.) Further, the Court permits Plaintiff to take 2-hour depositions of Defendants Devon Christian, Devlin Gandy, Emma Kemp, Matthew Altman, and one other chosen by Plaintiff from among those who submitted declarations in support of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The inquiry will be limited to the issues relating to the anti-SLAPP motion. In the conduct of these depositions, no objections may be interposed except as to privilege.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct discovery to oppose the Anti-SLAPP motion is granted in part.

At the hearing the Court will discuss with counsel the schedule for discovery and potential adjustments to the hearing on the motion to strike.