Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-2022-01248387, Date: 2023-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Quash Deposition Notice of Plaintiff’s Person Most Knowledgeable (“PMK”) is GRANTED.

Defendant Shafi Afridi’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff’s PMK (and the connected requests for judicial notice and evidentiary objections) are, therefore, MOOT.

Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).)  The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party “from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) 

The party seeking a protective order bears the burden of proving that good cause exists for the order.  (Emerson Electric Company v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110).

Defendant seeks to depose plaintiff’s PMK on two topics: (1) the organizational structure of Plaintiff, and (2) the basis for Plaintiff’s “information and belief’ that defendant violated the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”).  Neither one is relevant to the only issue in this case: whether defendant violated the ICA.

The first topic, though it derives from the introductory allegation that plaintiff is a “non-governmental organization . . . bringing an action to shut seeking down illegally operated immigration consultant businesses”  (Complaint ¶1), is utterly unconnected to any of the breaches alleged in the complaint.  The organizational structure of the plaintiff simply does not matter to the question of whether the defendant’s actions violated the ICA.  The only basis of relevance actually claimed in the opposition is that this allegation is relevant to the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees because plaintiff may be self-represented.  However, as made clear by the declarations attached to the motions and opposition, plaintiff is an LLC, not lawyer or a law firm.  Thus, there is no reason to request this information.  

The second topic derives from the introductory allegation that plaintiff is informed and believes that defendant violated the ICA.  (See Complaint ¶6).  This topic essentially asks for the details of plaintiff’s investigation into defendant’s business and the reasoning why plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant.  However, the opinion of an attorney (or a party) are neither admissible, nor relevant, to the issue of whether the violations occurred.  In this, as in all complaints, it simply goes without saying that plaintiff and his counsel believe defendant violated the law or the rights of the plaintiff. The question is whether defendant did or not, and asking about plaintiff’s belief is unnecessary to this purpose.

Thus, the court finds that neither topic is the proper subject of discovery, and the court does not reach the other arguments advanced by plaintiff, including the various privileges that may well apply to questions on these two topics.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED as the court finds that defendant’s notice of deposition was substantially justified as it is ordinary for a defendant to depose a plaintiff and vice versa.  Although plaintiff alleges that defendant pursued this deposition to harass plaintiff or to distract from other issues, the court does not find that this is the case.  Until the court ruled on this matter, it is understandable that defendant sought to depose plaintiff.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.