Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 21BBCV00189, Date: 2023-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21BBCV00189    Hearing Date: April 21, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of the Complaint

Plaintiff Hitech Imaging Trade, Inc. (“Hitech”) alleges that in 2018, Hitech was involved in a construction project located at 16549 Beaver Road, Adelanto, California, which required, among other things, electrical distribution lines to be laid.  Hitech alleges that it entered into an oral agreement with Defendant Aram G. Construction (“AGC”) in November 2018, wherein Hitech would pay AGC $110,000 to excavate areas of a roadway and lay electrical pipes and conduits in accordance with diagrams provided/prepared by Southern California Edison (“SCE”).  This project was to be completed within 3 months of the date of the agreement.  Hitech alleges that Defendants AGC and Aram Madzhinyan (“Madzhinyan”) breached the agreement by failing to complete the work and that after being paid approximately $80,000, AGC abandoned the project on March 25, 2019. 

The complaint, filed March 3, 2021, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of oral contract; (2) money had and received; (3) conversion; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) accounting; and (6) payment of contractor’s license bond.  

On October 12, 2021, Hitech dismissed with prejudice Defendant Western Surety Group only. 

B.     Cross-Complaint

On April 29, 2022, AGC and Madzhinyan filed a cross-complaint against Hitech, Grigor Kemdjian, and Mesrop Khoudagoulian for: (1) fraud and intentional deceit against all Cross-Defendants; (2) negligent misrepresentation against all Cross-Defendants; (3) breach of oral contract against all Cross-Defendants; (4) conspiracy to defraud against all Cross-Defendants; (5) civil assault against Kemdjian and Khoudagoulian; and (6) civil battery against Kemdjian and Khoudagoulian. 

On July 29, 2022, the Court sustained without leave to amend Khoudagoulian’s demurrer to the 5^th and 6^th causes of action in the cross-complaint as alleged against Khoudagoulian. 

C.     Motion on Calendar

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Hitech filed a motion to compel the second deposition session of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Madzhinyan and to produce documents as the deposition.  Hitech seeks $2,822.50 in sanctions against Madzhinyan only.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Hitech moves to compel the second deposition session of Madzhinyan and the production of documents at the deposition. 

            Hitech argues that Madzhinyan’s first deposition was held on November 15, 2022, but Madzhinyan had failed to produce certain records in response to the document requests accompanying the deposition notice.  Thus, the parties agreed on the record to hold Madzhinyan’s second deposition on November 23, 2022 and to produce the requested documents prior to the deposition.  (Miller Decl., Ex. 1 [Madzhinyan Depo. at p.248].)  Hitech states that its counsel noticed the second deposition for November 23, 2022 and followed-up via email with Madzhinyan’s counsel for the documents.  (Id., Exs. 2-3.)  However, because Madzhinyan did not provide documents, Hitech’s counsel continued the second deposition to December 8, 2022 and sent an amended notice thereto.  (Id., Ex. 4.)  Hitech’s counsel then sent additional emails seeking the documents without success and because no documents were received, Hitech’s counsel again continued the deposition to December 15, 2022.  (Id., Ex. 5.)  Hitech’s counsel attempted to request documents and Madzhinyan’s counsel responded that he had been unsuccessfully requesting the documents from Madzhinyan.   Because documents were still not produced, counsel for the parties agreed to continue the trial date.  (Id., Ex. 6.)  The parties acknowledged that defense counsel was having substantial difficulty in communicating with Defendants, which prevented him from obtaining the responsive documents for the deposition to go forward. 

            Here, there appears to have been substantial effort on the part of Hitech and its counsel to proceed with the second deposition of Madzhinyan and to obtain the relevant documents for the deposition.  Hitech made numerous accommodations and continuances of the deposition date (as well as the trial date to August 21, 2023) to give Madzhinyan additional time to produce documents.  The motion is unopposed and there are no objections to the second deposition proceeding or to the production of documents.  The Court grants the motion to compel Madzhinyan’s second deposition and orders Madzhinyan to produce the documents in the deposition notice prior to the date of the second deposition. 

            Hitech seeks sanctions against Madzhinyan only in the amount of $2,822.50 (= [3.5 hours to prepare the motion + 1 hour to review the opposition/prepare a reply brief + 2 hours to attend the hearing, at $425//hour] + $60 in filing fees).  (Miller Decl., ¶8.)  The Court will award sanctions in the amount of $1,700 (4 hours x $425/hour), plus $60 in filling fees.         

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Hitech Imaging Trade, Inc.’s motion to compel the second deposition of Defendant Aram Madzhinyan and the production of documents is granted.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to find a mutually agreeable deposition date.  If the meet and confer efforts fails, Plaintiff may schedule the second deposition for a date within 3 weeks of this order.  Defendant is also ordered to produce the documents requested in the deposition notice at least 3 business days before the deposition is scheduled.  

Defendant Aram Madzhinyan is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,760 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.