Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21SMCV00674, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00674    Hearing Date: December 9, 2022    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling
Mashian Law Group v. Loren Miles et al., Case No. 21SMCV00674
Hearing Date December 9, 2022
Plaintiff Mashian Law Group’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Plaintiff Mashian Law Group seeks to recover unpaid legal fees from defendant Miles. Miles seeks to depose Carrie Tautenhaun aka Carrie Tautenhahn, a paralegal working for Stanton & Associates, the firm representing Mashian. Miles argues the deposition is necessary to uncover improprieties related to how Mashian and his counsel signed various filings in this case.

Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively proper, only allowed when the deposing party can show “extremely” good cause. Carehouse Convalescent Hosp. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1556, 1462. 

Mashian argues that Ms. Tautenhaun, a third-party contractor working for plaintiff’s counsel, possesses no relevant information. Additionally, Mashian points out that the court already ruled on Miles’ interrogatories seeking information regarding Ms. Tautenhaun’s work, finding them irrelevant. Mashian argues the deposition seeks the same irrelevant information and should be quashed for the same reasons. Finally, Mashian argues the high standard for opposing counsel depositions set forth in Carehouse should apply to a deposition of opposing counsel’s employees, and that the standard is not met.

Miles argues he must depose Ms. Tautenhaun to determine whether she has been improperly affixing Mashian’s electronic signature to declarations and verifications throughout the lawsuit. Miles argues such conduct would constitute deception and moral turpitude and could serve as the basis for an unclean hands defense. Id.

The court has held the information Miles seeks is irrelevant to the actual dispute that is the subject of this litigation. It will not revisit that ruling now. This is a lawsuit about whether Miles owes money to Mashian; it is not about how Mashian and his counsel sign documents.

Miles’ argument that deposing Tautenhaun could uncover the basis for an unclean hands defense is without merit. The misconduct underlying an unclean hands defense must relate directly to the transaction concerning which the underlying complaint is made. Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 620, 638-639. There is no connection between Mashian’s electronic signature and allegations in the complaint. Even if the deposition uncovered wrongful conduct by Mashian, Tautenhaun or S & A, that conduct could not support an unclean hands defense. Other than his unclean hands theory – which is invalid for the reasons stated above – Miles does not explain how a deposition of Tautenhaun would produce any relevant information. GRANTED. No sanctions will be awarded, since Mashian has not shown Miles acted in bad faith in filing the deposition request.