Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV41020, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV41020    Hearing Date: March 25, 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 February 5, 2024, the Court granted Culver’s motion to compel further depositions of the tenants on the grounds that relevant text messages between the tenants were produced without an opportunity for Culver to question the tenants about them.

            On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff and the other tenants (Moving Parties) filed the instant motion for a protective order limiting the scope of the depositions. Culver filed its opposition on March 12, 2024, and Moving Parties filed their reply on the same day.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).) “The issuance and formulation of protective orders are to a large extent discretionary.” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Id. at p. 318.)

DISCUSSION

            In its February 5, 2024 order, the Court made the following pertinent findings. Bettadapur and Naik were deposed without any of the subject messages being produced prior to or during the depositions. The subject messages were produced minutes before Rassouli’s deposition and one day before Plaintiff’s deposition.

            Moving Parties argue that Plaintiff and Rassouli need not be further deposed at all because the new messages were produced before their depositions, and no new messages have been produced since then. Moving Parties also argue that the further depositions of Bettadapur and Naik should be limited to the newly produced communications because that was Culver’s stated purpose for seeking further depositions in the first place. Culver argues that this motion is an improper attempt at seeking reconsideration of the Court’s February 5 order and that Moving Parties did in fact produce additional communications after Plaintiff and Rassouli were deposed.

            First, this motion does not seek to relitigate the February 5 ruling, but rather to clarify the scope of the depositions that were ordered. Second, the Court agrees with Moving Parties that the depositions should be limited to the newly produced communications. That was the basis for the Court granting Culver’s motion in the first place. Culver did not contend otherwise in moving to compel further depositions, and it cannot contend now that it is somehow entitled to depose Moving Parties about any topic whatsoever. Culver already had a fair opportunity to depose Moving Parties on other topics. Therefore, further depositions are limited to the topic of communications that were produced after the initial depositions.

            The remaining dispute is whether Moving Parties produced additional communications after Plaintiff and Rassouli were deposed, such that those two need to be further deposed along with Bettadapur and Naik. Culver contends that on February 22, 2024, after Plaintiff and Rassouli were deposed, Moving Parties produced 120 pages of text messages. (Shabel Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 4.) Moving Parties respond that 88 of those 120 pages were merely duplicates of previously-produced documents. (Verdun Decl. ¶ 3.) Moving Parties further clarify that the remaining 32 pages are the same text messages that were produced shortly prior to the depositions of Plaintiff and Rassouli, but this time from Bettadapur’s phone. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6.) Because no new substance has been produced since Plaintiff’s and Rassouli’s depositions, those two need not be deposed again.

CONCLUSION

            The motion for protective order filed by Plaintiff, Rassouli, Bettadapur, and Naik is GRANTED. Plaintiff and Rassouli shall not be further deposed. The depositions of Bettadapur and Naik are limited to the newly produced communications.