Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV26285, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26285    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel deposition is MOOT. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

On 7/16/2021, Plaintiff Subrigo Communications Corporation and Subrigo Networks Corporation (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Turner Construction Company and Silverado Contractors. On 7/13/2023, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC) alleging negligence.

On 2/28/2025, Plaintiffs moved for an order of sanctions and compelling depositions.

Discussion

            Plaintiffs seek “an Order of sanctions including terminating sanctions (or, in the alternative, issue and evidentiary sanctions), monetary sanctions and compelling depositions against Defendant Silverado Contractors, Inc. (“Silverado”) as a result of Silverado’s chronic refusal to participate in discovery.” (Motion., 1: 5-6.)

            In support, Plaintiffs indicate that Defendant Silverado has repeatedly refused to produce party witnesses at properly noticed depositions, and that this interference in Plaintiffs’ preparation for trial cannot be reversed or overcome.

            In opposition, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ representations are false. Namely, that deponents did not refuse to appear; they timely objected and requested new dates. Defendant further states that “Plaintiffs’ counsel had already agreed with Silverado’s counsel to wait on these depositions until the receipt of subpoenaed documents that were expected to show that the subject conduit was repaired. Despite this agreement, Plaintiffs abruptly abandoned the meet-and-confer process, instead filing this motion as a litigation tactic rather than as a genuine effort to resolve a discovery dispute.” (Opp., 2: 4-8.)

            After review, the Court finds insufficient grounds to award terminating, issue, or evidentiary sanctions.

            Defendant submitted evidence that on 1/24/2025, after the deposition of Plaintiffs’ PMQ, Silverado’s counsel, Mr. Martin Holly, spoke with Plaintiffs’ counsel and informed him that Silverado was awaiting subpoenaed documents related to the conduit repair. (Lopez Decl.  ¶2.) Specifically, Silverado issued a subpoena to Allied World Assurance Company (AWAC) for documents which would show whether the subject conduit and fiber optic cable which are at the center of this case were repaired and the date upon which the repair occurred. These documents would directly bear upon the extent of Plaintiffs’ claims and damages. Counsel agreed that it made sense to delay the depositions of Jimmy Saldivar, Hugo Pulido, and Mike Turpin until these documents were received. (Lopez Decl. ¶3) After this point in time, it was Silverado’s understanding that once the documents were received they would be provided to Plaintiffs and then after they had a chance to analyze the documents, they could determine if they still needed to take these depositions. (Lopez Decl. ¶4)

            While Plaintiffs apparently did not share this understanding, the meet and confer email they sent to Defendant does not indicate any meaningful effort to meet and confer. (See Lopez Decl. Exhs.) Moreover, even assuming it did, there would still be inadequate justification to impose extreme sanctions such as evidentiary or issue sanctions, or the ultimate sanction of termination. This is especially true given that Plaintiff has not moved to compel deposition prior, and thus there is no basis for concluding that Defendant has chronically abused the discovery process.

            More importantly, on 2/3/2025, Silverado’s counsel provided deposition dates for Saldivar and Pulido, and since the filing of Defendant’s opposition, all of the depositions that Plaintiffs’ motion was trying to compel have already been taken (with the exception of Mike Turpin, who is no longer employed with Silverado and Silverado has provided Plaintiffs’ with his last known address).  Despite this, Plaintiffs did not withdraw their motion. (Lopez Decl. ¶11)

            Given that the substance of this motion is moot, and Plaintiffs did not adequately meet and confer prior to filing this motion, the Court finds substantial justification for Defendant’s conduct and declines to award sanctions.

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and to compel deposition is moot. The Court declines to award sanctions at this time.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.