Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV21561, Date: 2024-05-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21561    Hearing Date: May 16, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Charter Communications, Inc. d/b/a Spectrum (“Defendant”) moves to compel Plaintiff STEVE HOFFMAN, TRUSTEE OF THE KARL AND PEARL HOFFMAN FAMILY TRUST (“Plaintiff”), both in his capacity as a trustee and his capacity as a person most knowledgeable (“PMK”). Defendant also requests certain document productions.  Defendant seeks as sanctions attorney’s fees in the total amounts of $13,000.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s depositions in their entirety.  The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to compel document production in their entirety.  Defendant shall produce the deponents and documents within two weeks of this order.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for sanctions IN PART. Plaintiff shall pay $5,500.00 in sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 days of the issuance of this order.

Defendant also sought relief relating to the trial date in this matter.  The Court will discuss the schedule of this case with the parties at the hearing.

Background

This is an action for trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff filed suit over Defendant’s installation of certain internet wiring and internet boxes on Plaintiff’s properties at 301 and 309 N. Sycamore Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90036 (together, the “Properties”).

Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2022. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which alleges (1) trespass; and (2) nuisance.

An informal discovery conference (“IDC”) was held on November 30, 2023. Pursuant to the resulting agreement, Defendant was required to provide for deposition 13 PMK and custodian of records (“COR”) witnesses by December 31, 2023.

On March 8, 2024, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s depositions for March 27, 2024 (for Plaintiff’s general deposition) and March 29, 2024 (for Plaintiff’s PMK deposition). Plaintiff objected that he would not be available on those dates. Defendant attempted to meet and confer, but the parties were unable to agree to deposition dates.

Defendant filed this motions on April 12, 2024. Plaintiff filed an omnibus opposition to both motions. Defendant filed a reply in support of each motion.

Legal Standard

“Any party may obtain discovery…by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) “Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280 the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, subd. (b)). “A deposition subpoena may command any of the following: …. (c)The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

“If the deponent is an organization, the subpoena shall describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The subpoena shall also advise the organization of its duty to make the designation of employees or agents who will attend the deposition, as described in Section 2025.230.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.310, subd. (e).)

“If a deponent on whom a deposition subpoena has been served fails to attend a deposition or refuses to be sworn as a witness, the court may impose on the deponent the sanctions described in Section 2020.240.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.440, subd. (b).)

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) This motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)

Discussion

            The parties’ respective positions can be found in their filings, including the separate statements. The Court’s rulings on each request are set forth below.

Deposition

            Defendant’s deposition notice appears valid.

            Plaintiff raises two arguments in opposition. First, Plaintiff argues that he was unavailable on the noticed dates. If this is the issue, Plaintiff had the responsibility to meet and confer in good faith to set dates on which he was available. The evidence in the record indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to some of Defendant’s attempts to communicate and set mutually agreeable deposition dates.

            Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has improperly refused to provide the 13 PMK and COR witnesses agreed to at the IDC. This may be true, and if so, Plaintiff may move to compel their depositions. However, Defendant’s alleged failure to engage in the discovery process in good faith does not excuse Plaintiff’s failure to engage in the discovery process in good faith.

            The Court grants Defendant’s motion to compel both depositions.

Document Production

Plaintiff raised the same objections to the document production as to the depositions. The Court orders that Plaintiff comply with Defendant’s Requests for Production.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant. Because the Court finds that these motions are not baseless, and in fact grants the motion, the Court denies sanctions.

Defendant requests sanctions of attorney’s fees in the total amounts of $12,250.00.

Defendant requests an hourly rate of $250.00 per hour for Roxanne Crocket. The Court finds this rate to be reasonable.

Defendant requests 25 hours for one motion and 27 hours for another.  The Court reduces the time awarded to 11 hours per motion, or 22 hours total. The Court awards a total of $5,500.00 in sanctions to Defendant.

The Court denies the request for evidentiary sanctions.