Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 21STCV01974, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 21STCV01974, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV01974 Hearing Date: March 4, 2025 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Johnson v. Essex Property Trust, Case no. 21STCV01974

Hearing date March 4, 2025

Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety

Plaintiff Johnson sues defendant Essex Property Trust, Inc., for alleged habitability defects across two apartments at defendant’s Fountain Park complex which plaintiff occupied from 3/8/06 to the present. Plaintiff alleges security issues, elevator issues and a pervasive methane seep below the properties. Plaintiff issued multiple third-party subpoenas relating to defendant’s obligations regarding the alleged seep which defendant seeks to quash as overbroad, seeking irrelevant documents and intruding on privacy rights. The instant motion is to quash the subpoena served to third-party Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. Plaintiff opposes.

Defendant argues plaintiff’s opposition is untimely and should be struck. The opposition was filed 2/21/25. The deadline to file the opposition was 2/18/25. Defendant was successful in filing and serving a substantive reply, therefore the court will consider the opposition’s merits.

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1(a). “[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.

Defendant argues the subpoena is overbroad as to both time and scope. The subpoena seeks the following: (1) any and all documents that are part of, incorporated into, and/or reference the building plans for the Fountain Park Apartments; (2) any and all documents that are part of, incorporated into, and/or reference any and all permits for the Fountain Park Apartments; (3) any and all documents related to all inspections prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Fountain Park Apartments; (4) any and all documents related to all inspections after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Fountain Park Apartments; (5) any and all documents or reports related to inspections by city inspectors of fire safety systems at Playa Vista and/or Fountain Park Apartments from January 1, 2000, to present; (6) Any and all documents that maintained in compliance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code section 91.7104.3.8, including but not limited to: the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program approved by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety on January 31, 2001; (7) any and all documents that are part of, incorporated into, and referenced in the Los Angeles Department of Building Safety’s approval of the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program on Department on January 31, 2001; (8) any and all documents that are related to, part of, incorporated into, and referenced in the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety’s approval of the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program on Department on January 31, 2001, including but not limited to the files of Department of Building official David Hsu or reports of Exploration Technologies Inc.; (9) any and all documents that make up or are part of the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program; (10) any and all documents related to any additional requirements imposed by in the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety on the Playa Vista Methane Mitigation System; (11) any and all internal communications related to the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program or methane mitigation at Playa Vista and/or the Fountain Park Apartments; (12) any and all external communications related to the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program or methane mitigation at Playa Vista and/or the Fountain Park Apartments; (13) any and all communications related to the Playa Vista Methane Prevention, Detection and Monitoring Program referenced in Los Angeles Municipal Code section 91.7104.3.8 and approved by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety on January 31, 2001, including but not limited to the files of Department of Building official David Hsu or reports of Exploration Technologies Inc.; (14) any and all documents submitted to the Department by the owners and/or managers of the Fountain Park Apartments or the Playa Vista Property Owners Association regarding methane including but not limited to: annual reports, calibration logs, incident reports, and engineer’s stamps of approval since 2001; and (15) Any and all documents related to certifications submitted to the Department by the owners and/or managers of the Fountain Park Apartments or the Playa Vista Property Owners Association since 2001.

Plaintiff argues the scope of discovery in California is broad, and that the documents sought by the subpoena seek relevant information as to the governance, safety measures and public communications of the Fountain Park complex. See Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249. While broad discovery is permitted in California, even broad discovery requests must nevertheless be reasonably calculated to produce admissible evidence. See Cruz v. Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 646, 653. As plaintiff is alleging a failure to comply with applicable methane/air-control policies applicable to the subject apartment complex, plaintiff is entitled to broad discovery regarding the alleged policies and procedures.

Plaintiff’s requests nos. 2-4 and 15 are overbroad and impermissibly seek irrelevant information. Plaintiff seeks “any and all” documents relating to permits, certifications and inspections both pre- and post-dating the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the subject complex. Plaintiff’s claims arise from alleged habitability defects; therefore, general permits and certificates not arising from the alleged defects, i.e., elevators or methane seepage, are irrelevant to plaintiff’s claims and not reasonably calculated to produce admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s requests nos. 2-4 and 15 are narrowed to only documents arising from the two buildings plaintiff is alleged to have inhabited. Plaintiff’s requests nos. 2-4 and 15 are further narrowed to only include documents directly relating to the categories of alleged defects: methane/air quality, elevator functionality and security issues.

Plaintiff’s requests generally are impermissibly overbroad as to time. Plaintiff’s arguments that discovery of documents pre-dating her occupancy is necessary to establish whether defendant has met its obligations regarding the alleged seep are unavailing; whether defendant was previously in breach of an obligation has no merit as to plaintiff’s claims for habitability defects, which by definition only arise when plaintiff began inhabiting the property. All requests seeking documents from 2001 onwards are overbroad and will have their scope reduced to 2006 onwards.

Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena in its entirety is DENIED; the subpoena’s scope is modified as above.