Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 22IWUD01154 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Motion to Compel Answers at Deposition from Plaintiff Nola Properties, LLC and to Produce Documents Requested; Request to Continue Trial

The motion is GRANTED. The court orders that the deposition of plaintiff’s PMQ Lars Viklund of Nola Properties be resumed within ____ days and that PMQ Viklund respond to questions regarding redevelopment, conditional use permits, and offers to pay and to produce responsive documents. The trials are CONTINUED to 10/26/22 10:00a. This case, related UD cases and civil case are all ordered transferred to ING dept 8, Judge Frank as a part of the opening of that courtroom.

On July 8, 2022, plaintiff Nola Properties LLC filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Illien Thamer based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit as to property at 149 Paseo De La Concha, #B, Redondo Beach, CA 90277. Plaintiff alleges that Thamer’s monthly rent is $1,200 and that she owes past due rent of $3,600 from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022.

On September 12, 2022, by stipulation, the court ordered that discovery in the related UD matters is coordinated and discovery in one case is discovery in all three cases.

CCP §2025.480 states: “(a) If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, . . . 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. (b) The motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. . . . If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition. . . . The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. . . .”

Defendant Illien Thamer requests an order compelling plaintiff Nola Properties for further deposition answers and to produce documents requested in discovery and for sanctions.

Defendant also requests that the court continue the trial date until a date no earlier than one week after defendant has received the transcript, requested on a regular turnaround, from the further deposition sought and for plaintiff to either reimburse defendant for the prior deposition costs or pay for the further deposition costs.

Defendant asserts that on September 19, 2022, defense counsel took the deposition of Lars Viklund as the PMQ for plaintiff as to the topics described in the notice of deposition served on September 1, 2022. Defendant contends that among those topics, No. 9 states: “Plaintiff’s plans to demolish, renovate, and/or rebuild the property, including any plans for sale or further use or redevelopment of the Property” and No. 13 states: “Any conditional use permits applied for or issued in relation to the Property.” Defendant contends that deponent Viklund refused to answer any questions or produce any documents relating to his redevelopment plans for the property, asserting an objection as to the scope of permissible discovery or relevance. Defendant explains that Viklund’s attorney instructed him not to answer the following questions: When did you decide to redevelop the property? When did you first apply for permits to redevelop the property? Do you have any conditional use permits on the property? And they were paying [Thamer] to move out[,] why? Do you remember the amounts that you were offering to pay [Zipper and Roth]? Were you going to pay back [contactor] Denton if the tenants had accepted that money?

Defendant argues that the deponent’s objection as to relevance and plaintiff’s counsel’s instruction not to answer are improper. Defendant argues that relevance is not a legitimate reason to refuse to answer a deposition question and that, in any event, the subject of the questions is relevant. See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4^th 1006, 1014 (“[E]ven were the questions designed to elicit irrelevant evidence, irrelevance alone is an insufficient ground to justify preventing a witness from answering a question posed at a deposition.”). Defendant contends that the information sought is relevant to Nola’s maintenance of the property because the fact that if Nola is planning to demolish the property means that Nola is less likely to invest and maintain the property’s habitability.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that questions regarding plans to redevelop the property, conditional use permits, and offers to pay defendant to vacate the property are not relevant and would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in a non-payment based UD action. Plaintiff asserts that “motive” is not relevant to maintenance of the property. Further, plaintiff contends, an offer to pay money in exchange for possession is not relevant to defendant’s obligation to pay rent, especially when the offer was rejected and defendant remained in possession of the property.

In reply, defendant reiterates that irrelevance is an improper deposition objection, citing also to LASC Local Rules, Appendix 3.A(e)(9), which states: “Counsel should not direct a deponent to refuse to answer any questions unless they seek privileged information or are manifestly irrelevant or calculated to harass.” Defendant reiterates her argument that the question of when plaintiff decided to redevelop its property goes directly to the habitability defense. As to conditional-use permits, defendant argues that they may reveal information about the conditions on the property. As to attempts to “pay off defendant to remove her from her home,” defendant argues that they are admissions against interest.

The court finds that the discovery—the deposition questions and production sought—are subject to discovery as the scope of discovery is broad and there is a reasonable possibility that the answers sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence or be helpful in preparing for trial. Plaintiff’s objections based on relevance and instructions not to answer were improper. See Stewart, supra. Thus, the motion is GRANTED, and the court orders the resumption of the deposition. The trials are CONTINUED. As to sanctions, the request is DENIED as defense counsel did not provide a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought. See CCP §2023.040. Further, plaintiff acted with substantial justification in opposing the motion.