Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22SCT32792, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: December 16, 2024

Case Name: Reed v. Salinas, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV24898

Matter: Motion to Compel Further Responses

Moving Party: Defendants Cal Homes Group, Inc. and Eddie Salinas

Responding Party: Plaintiffs David and Connie Reed

Ruling: The Motion to Compel is denied.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiffs David Reed and Connie Reed filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract and (2) fraud against Defendants Cal Homes Group, Inc. and Eddie Salinas.  Plaintiffs allege that the parties reached a written settlement agreement through mediation whereby Defendants promised to pay Plaintiffs $15,000 in connection with a purchase of a property that contained certain material defects, but Defendants failed to pay the agreed upon amount when it became due per the settlement agreement.

Defendants Cal Homes Group, Inc. and Eddie Salinas now seek to compel further responses to their deposition questions from Plaintiffs David and Connie Reed.  There are thirteen questions at issue and Defendants also seek follow up questions.  These questions pertain to Exhibit 3-10.  Plaintiffs’ counsel instructed the Reeds not to answer because the documents are irrelevant.

Exhibit 3 was entitled “Agent Visual Inspection Document”.  Exhibit 4 was entitled "For Your Protection, Get a Home Inspection".  Exhibit 5 was titled Verification of Property Condition Buyer Final Inspection.  Exhibits 6 is an addendum and 7 relates to a contingency Removal.  Exhibit 8 is a repair request and Exhibit 9 is a Seller Response and Buyer Reply to Request to Repair. 

Defendants contend that “these questions sought highly relevant information regarding Plaintiffs’ damages. They are also relevant, or through follow-up questions would likely lead to relevant evidence regarding the elements of concealment, deceit and reliance which are essential to the fraud by deceit claim.”

Plaintiffs argue that: “Defendants are seeking to Compel Plaintiffs to provide further Answers to Deposition Questions, set for hearing on November 6, 2024. This is a discovery motion and cannot be granted because discovery is closed. The original trial date in this action was July 24, 2024. Per CCP 2024.020, all discovery motions must be heard on or before the 15th day before the date initially set for the trial of the action. The last date for Defendants to bring the instant motion was on or before July 9, 2024.”

July 24, 2024, is not the initial trial date.  Trial was once set for March 25, 2024.  When continuing the March 2024 trial date, the Court seemingly exempted Plaintiffs’ depositions from the discovery deadlines.  This is why the Court heard a motion to compel as to these depositions in June 2024.  However, an exemption cannot be in perpetuity and would have been tied to the new July 2024 trial date.  In July 2024, there was no attempt to again extend discovery deadlines with respect to these depositions when continuing the trial date.  It seems this Motion cannot be heard.  

“Taken as a whole, [the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.460] clearly contemplate that deponents not be prevented by counsel from answering a question unless it pertains to privileged matters or deposing counsel’s conduct has reached a state where suspension is warranted.  The fact that suspension is available only where an interrogation into improper matters reveals an underlying purpose to harass, annoy, etc., indicates that witnesses are expected to endure an occasional irrelevant question without disrupting the deposition process.”  (Stewart v. Colonial Wester Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015.)  Objections as to relevancy during a deposition are “unnecessary.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.460.)  

It could be said the exhibits may be relevant to the damages for Plaintiffs’ fraud claim, which apparently do not relate only to the failed $15,000 payment—Plaintiffs state they would not have released their claims and seek $500,000 in damages.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs now seem to be disclaiming any damages that would not relate to enforcement of the settlement agreement: “Plaintiffs waived their right to pursue any/all claims by executing the settlement/release. Plaintiffs are now seeking to enforce that settlement agreement in this pending action.”  To the extent that Plaintiffs merely seek to enforce the $15,000 settlement (plus expenses), the subject exhibits are irrelevant and further testimony is not required.

Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs only seek to enforce the settlement agreement, the Motion is denied.   The objections are overruled.  There will be no sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.