Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV05624, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV05624    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 56

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

GROUP IX BP PROPERTIES, LP, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

 

 

      CASE NO.: 22STCV05624

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

 

Date:  May 5, 2023

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

 

 

MOVING PARTY: Los Angeles City Council President Paul Krekorian (“Krekorian”)

RESPONDING PARTIES: Defendants

 

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

 

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of an alleged public nuisance caused by gang-related activity at an apartment complex located in the North Hollywood area of Los Angeles (the “Property”).  Plaintiff’s complaint (the “Complaint”), filed on February 15, 2022, alleges: (1) public nuisance; and (2) unfair competition.

 

Krekorian filed a motion to quash the deposition subpoena (the “Subpoena”) for personal appearance and production of records (the “Motion”) that was served on him by Defendant Regency Management, Inc. (“Regency”).[1]

 

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010 provides that, generally, any party may obtain discovery regarding any relevant matter that is not privileged.  Discovery is relevant if it is itself admissible in evidence or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.  (Id.)

 

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion made by any person described in CCP section 1987.1, subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare.  (CCP § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

 

 

The Motion contends that Krekorian was served with the Subpoena on March 1, 2023 for his appearance at a deposition on April 3, 2023.  The Motion, however, does not include a copy of the Subpoena or include other evidence regarding the scope of Krekorian’s deposition.[2]  Defendants’ opposition (the “Opposition”) includes evidence of a March 1, 2011 motion to temporarily close an alleyway that abuts the Property that is signed by Krekorian, but likewise fails to include a copy of the Subpoena or specific evidence of the Subpoena’s scope.  (See Declaration of Daniel R. Lahana (“Lahana Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit 1.) 

 

Based on the lack of evidence, the Court is unable to evaluate the merits of Krekorian’s specific objections to the Subpoena.  The Court notes, however, that Krekorian was not required to file a motion to quash and was entitled to object to the Subpoena by raising an objection, thereby placing the burden on Defendants to bring a motion to compel.  (See Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1282, 1288-90.)  In addition, the general rule in California and federal court is that agency heads and other top governmental executives are not subject to deposition absent compelling reasons.  (Westly v. Superior Court (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 907, 910.)  An exception to the rule exists only when the official has direct personal factual information pertaining to material issues in the action and the deposing party shows the information to be gained from the deposition is not available through any other source.  (Id. at 911.)  Thus, Defendants are not precluded from bring a motion to compel Krekorian’s deposition, although they have the burden of showing that Krekorian’s deposition is proper.  The Motion is therefore MOOT.

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 5th day of May 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

 

 



[1] The copy of the Motion in the Court’s casefile was filed on April 28, 2023 but was served on Defendants on March 31, 2023.

[2] In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)