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
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.)