Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00939, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00939    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Farzin Maly and Bahareh M. Moghaddam (“Plaintiffs”) are married and allege that they are the co-owners of the property located at 11318 Dona Pegita Drive in Studio City.  Plaintiffs allege that on August 12, 2021, they were issued a homeowner’s policy of title insurance from Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“Defendant”) in connection with their acquisition of title to the property.  Plaintiffs allege that on October 19, 2021, they discovered the existence of an easement on the contents of the deed recorded November 9, 1961 in favor of Southern California Edison (“SCE”) over the southeasterly 25 feet of the property.  Plaintiffs allege that they contacted Defendant on October 21, 2021 to file a claim of loss, but Defendant failed to respond, such that Plaintiffs hired an attorney.  On March 28, 2022, Plaintiffs, through counsel, contacted Defendant and filed another claim of loss.  On May 12, 2022, Defendant denied Plaintiffs’ claim.  Plaintiffs allege that they went back and forth with Defendant and sent requested documents to Defendant. 

Plaintiffs allege that on August 31, 2022, Defendant accepted liability for Plaintiffs’ loss.  The parties each obtained their own real estate appraisers to assess Plaintiffs’ damages.  Defendant’s appraiser reported damages of $60,000 for the SEC easement, while Plaintiffs’ first appraiser estimated $700,000 and their second appraiser estimated $578,000.  On December 19, 2022, Defendant sent correspondence that it stood by its original assessment of damages and then denied Plaintiffs’ amended claim for $578,000. 

The complaint, filed April 28, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.     

B.     Motion on Calendar

On September 6, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to compel Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. to comply with deposition subpoena for production of business records and for sanctions in the amount of $1,660. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief. 

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to compel nonparty Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. (“TL”) to comply with deposition subpoena for production of business records.  Defendant argues that TL is a material witness in this action as Plaintiff Maly stated at his deposition that before he learned of the SCE easement, he had hired TL to perform structural engineering services in connection with plans to remodel and put an addition on the house at the subject property.  Defendant argues that Maly testified that he prepared and provided architectural plans to TL, instructed TL to stop working on the project after learning about the SCE easement (September 2021), and incurred $13,000 in debt to TL who issued an invoice to Maly in December 2023.  (Wright Decl., Ex. K.)  Defendant argues that TL is also identified as the engineer on Maly’s March 20, 2024 application for a building permit for renovations on the property (despite the existence of the SCE easement).  (Id., Exs. L-M.) 

            Defendant personally served the deposition subpoena for production of business records on TL on June 4, 2024, seeking the production of documents by June 24, 2024.  The subpoena sought documents, including: (1) all communications with Maly concerning or relating to the property; (2) all documents, including communications, concerning or relating to the property, including TL’s files concerning the property, and including all correspondence, maps, surveys, plans, reports, invoices, checks, notes, emails, text messages, memos, photographs, and drawings; and (3) all communications with Rouzbeh Zarrinbakhsh or Shireen Tavakoli (Plaintiffs’ counsel)  concerning or relating to the property.  (Wright Decl., Exs. A-B.)  The Notice of Issuance of the Subpoena to TL was also served on Plaintiff’s counsel.  (Id., Ex. C.)  Defendant argues that TL did not produce any documents and did not object to the subpoena; Plaintiffs also did not object.  On June 26, 2024 and July 5, 2024, defense counsel emailed TL regarding the subpoena, but did not receive a response.  (Id., Exs. D-E.)  On July 16, 2024, defense counsel called and left a message for TL, but did not receive a response.  (Id., ¶7.)  On July 24, 2024, defense counsel sent another email to TL, and TL responded that they would be out of the country for a few weeks, the request was sent to their lawyer, and they had nothing to do with the case.  (Id., Exs. F-H.)  Defense counsel inquired of Plaintiffs’ counsel if they were representing TL, to which Plaintiffs’ counsel responded they were not.  (Id., Ex. G.)  On July 25, 2024, defense counsel sent another to email to TL asking if TL would comply with the subpoena, but defense counsel did not receive a response.  (Id., Ex. H.) 

            Defendant seeks TL’s compliance with the deposition subpoena, arguing that there is good cause of the production of documents related to Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendant’s defenses.  It argues that the documents will aid in ascertaining the timing of Plaintiffs’ discovery of the SCE easement, the impact of the easement on the property and on Plaintiffs’ alleged plans to renovate the property, and Plaintiffs’ alleged damages sought in the action. 

            The motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for production of business records is granted.  The motion is not opposed and no objections were raised with respect to the subpoena by TL or by Plaintiffs’ counsel.  Defendant has established good cause for the documents requested.  As such, the motion is granted.

            Defendant seeks $1,660 in sanctions against TL (= 3 hours for the motion + 1 anticipated hour for the hearing at $400/hour, plus $60 in filing fees).  The Court will award sanctions in favor of Defendant as requested.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant First American Title Insurance Company’s motion to compel Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. to comply with deposition subpoena for production of business records is granted.  Defendant is ordered to personally serve the deposition subpoena on Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. with a copy of this order.  Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. is ordered to produce documents within 20 days of notice of the order. 

Thang Le & Associates Structural Engineers, Inc. is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,660 to Defendant, by and through counsel, within 20 days of notice of this order.

            Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED:  November 8, 2024                                                  ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court