Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: BC723513, Date: 2023-08-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC723513    Hearing Date: October 13, 2023    Dept: 68

Motion for Reconsideration

Second Site LLC vs. Paul Scott, et al., BC723513

Moving Party: Defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center

Background

            On August 15, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff Second Site, LLC’s (Plaintiff) motion to compel further answers to deposition questions. The Court granted the motion because the person most qualified (PMQ) provided by Defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center (Defendant) was unable to answer several of the questions asked by Plaintiff at the deposition and did not appear to have to much knowledge of the corporation. There were several questions where the PMQ, Mr. Alireza Shekarchian, answered by stating that he did not know the answer, or by stating that another person in the organization would be more qualified to answer the question.

            Pursuant to CCP § 1008(a), Defendant filed this motion for reconsideration on the basis that it did not have an opportunity to oppose the motion to compel further answers. Defendant claims that its attorney was not served with the motion to compel because Plaintiff used a different method of electronic service than it usually uses. Defendant also claims that Plaintiff failed to meet and confer on over 80 questions in the motion to compel. Defendant included a proposed opposition to the motion to compel further answers with its motion to reconsider.

            Plaintiff argues in opposition that Defendant has not argued a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration must be supported by new facts, law, or circumstances. Further, Plaintiff argues that Defendant was served in the same manner that Plaintiff had been serving Defendant previously. Pursuant to CCP § 2025.450(j), Plaintiff has requested $2,000.00 in sanctions against Defendant for Plaintiff having to oppose this motion.

            Defendant argues in its reply that the information it has argued in its motion amount to new facts and circumstances. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff failed to establish any resulting prejudice from granting the reconsideration motion.

Analysis

            CCP § 1008(a) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration if there are new or different facts, circumstances, or law that were not available at the time the motion was heard.

            Defendant is not arguing any new law. Rather, Defendant is arguing that there is new and different information. Defendant argues that the new and different information that it has provided is that service of the motion was irregular and that there was a failure to meet and confer prior to the motion to compel being filed.

            As to the service issue, Plaintiff filed proof of service with the motion to compel further answers on July 17, 2023. Defendant claims that it was not served or that service was irregular because Defendant’s counsel was out of the country. Plaintiff argues in opposition that it did serve Defendant. Regardless, the issue of service does not change the Court’s analysis of the facts that were presented on the motion, where the Court found that the answers of Defendant’s PMQ were lacking.

            Whether a proper meet and confer took place is immaterial to the Court’s prior analysis. That does not change the fact that the person provided by Defendant for the deposition appeared to be unable to answer several questions.

            Though the Court does not need to consider Defendant’s proposed opposition to the motion to compel further answer, the Court will note that nothing in that opposition would have changed the Court’s prior ruling.

            The Court’s prior ruling stands. The Court denies Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. No new sanctions will be awarded on this motion.

Order

            Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is denied.