Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 23SMCV04180, Date: 2024-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04180    Hearing Date: January 23, 2024    Dept: O

  Case Name:  Gjertson v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.

SUBJECT:                 MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF CHRISTOPHER GJERTSON’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO BURBANK HOUSING AUTHORITY

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Christopher Gjertson

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc.’s Motion to Quah Plaintiff Christopher Gjertson’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Burbank Housing Authority is DENIED. Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc.’s request for sanctions isDENIED.

            Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc. (“Avalonbay”) moves to quash Plaintiff Christopher Gjertson’s (“Gjertson”) Deposition subpoenas category 1 including any all documents regarding complaints, violations, inspections and citations regarding the property at issue, and category 2 including any and all correspondence and communications between the Burbank Housing Authority and the owner of the property at issue. Avalonbay argues the Deposition subpoenas are irrelevant and oppressive.

Gjertson’s deposition subpoena categories 1 and 2 are not irrelevant or oppressive.  The requested material is relevant to Gjertson’s claim that Avalonbay negligently maintained, controlled, repaired and/or inspected the subject premises. The material requested is relevant for Giertson to determine whether Avalonbay had prior knowledge of maintenance or repair issues, thus directly related to an element of the negligence claim.

            Avalonbay argues that Gjertson cannot engage in a fishing expedition, but this defense alone is not enough to reach oppressiveness or irrelevance when the records sought appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, Gjertson points out that the Burbank Housing Authority “did not object to the subpoena or the scope/time frame and has the documents ready for production,” thus providing evidence that the requests are not oppressive, harassing or unduly burdensome.  

            The Court agrees with Gjertson and finds that the requests are not irrelevant or oppressive. Thus, Avalonbay’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

            “Except as specified in subdivision (b), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (CCP §1987.2.)