Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV38373, Date: 2023-07-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38373    Hearing Date: February 5, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff Nicholas Sabbagh filed this action against Defendant Culver 12 LLC, alleging causes of action for (1) unlawful retention of security deposit, (2) breach of lease, (3) negligence, and (4) conversion. Plaintiff alleges that he rented a unit from Defendant and paid a $15,000 security deposit which was supposed to be returned upon termination of the tenancy. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant improperly applied expenses against the deposit, resulting in nothing being returned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that this amounts to theft of the security deposit.      

            On January 5, 2023, Defendant Culver filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Sachin Tejas Bettadapur, Alexander Amir Rassouli, and Ashan Naik, alleging breach of lease. Plaintiff and the other Cross-Defendants resided in the same unit. Culver alleges that the tenants caused extensive damages to the unit which required more than $18,000 to repair. Culver therefore applied the full security deposit of $15,000 towards the repair. The tenants also allegedly kept a dog in violation of the no-pet provision in the lease. Culver sues for the damage caused to the premises by the tenants and their dog.  

            On March 15, 2023, Bettadapur, Rassouli, and Naik, the tenants who shared the unit with Plaintiff, filed their own cross-complaint against Culver, which is substantively identical to Plaintiff’s complaint.

            On January 8, 2024, Culver filed the instant motion to compel further deposition testimony and production of documents from Plaintiff, Rassouli, Naik, and Bettadapur. Culver filed a reply on January 26, 2024, indicating that it received an opposition. However, no opposition has been filed with the Court, and therefore no opposition will be considered.   

LEGAL STANDARD

A deponent may not be deposed twice except for good cause shown. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610(a), (b).) “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Id., § 2025.480(a).)

DISCUSSION

            The subject depositions initially took place between November and December 2023. (Shabel Decl. ¶ 2.) The requests for production accompanying the depositions included a request to produce communications between the Cross-Defendants from August 1, 2022 to December 8, 2022 pertaining to the premises or the lease thereof. (Id., Ex. A.) Bettadapur and Naik were deposed first but did not produce any communications in accordance with the above request. (Id., ¶ 4.) Minutes before Rassouli’s deposition began, Rassouli’s attorney sent screenshots of text messages between the Cross-Defendants. (Ibid.) Plaintiff’s deposition was scheduled for the day after Rassouli’s. (Ibid.) Culver contends that because the texts were produced so late, it did not have the documents required to properly depose Bettadapur and Naik, and could not properly prepare for the depositions of Rassouli and Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 6.) Culver further contends that more communications exist which have not been produced. (Id., ¶ 7.) Through this motion, Culver seeks to compel the production of all communications in accordance with the above document request and to compel the depositions of Cross-Defendants regarding any such communications that were or will be produced.  

            The subject communications pertain to Cross-Defendants’ potential animus towards the landlord (Culver) and their potentially frivolous motivations for filing this action. (See Shabel Decl., Ex. B.) Therefore, the communications are material to the action, and Culver is entitled to discover them and depose Cross-Defendants about them. Cross-Defendants do not deny the existence of additional communications which have not been produced. Cross-Defendants have not filed an opposition and have therefore presented no argument regarding why they should not be compelled to produce the remainder of the subject communications and be deposed about them.

CONCLUSION

            Culver 12, LLC’s motion to compel further deposition and production of documents is GRANTED. Sanctions are denied as Culver failed to “identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought” in the notice of motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.)