Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STCV18752, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV18752    Hearing Date: November 28, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27

HEARING DATE:      November 28, 2023                    TRIAL DATE:  January 17, 2024

CASE:                         California Joint Powers Insurance Authority v. Soto Provision, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 19STCV18752

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF RAMIN GHANEEIAN

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OF PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AT ROCKPOINT FUNDING LLC

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Soto Provision and Salvador Gabriel

RESPONDING PARTY:     Plaintiff Monica Ruiz Herrera  

I.          BACKGROUND

            This action for personal injury damages and workers compensation subrogation arises from a July 21, 2017 multiple vehicle rear-end collision.  Monica Ruiz Herrera (“Herrera”) was driving on the freeway in the course and scope of her employment with California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (“CJPIA”) when Salvador Gabriel (“Gabriel”) collided his tractor trailer with a vehicle driven by Delma Barragan-Garcia, who then rear-ended Herrera’s vehicle. Gabriel was operating his vehicle in the course of his employment with Soto Provision, Inc. (“Soto Provision”) at the time of the collision. 

            On July 1, 2019, Ms. Herrera filed a Complaint against Soto Provision and Gabriel.  This is the only remaining case in the consolidated action.

            On June 8, 2023, Soto Provision and Gabriel (hereafter, “Defendants”) filed these motions to compel nonparty Ramin Ghaneeian to personally appear for deposition and to compel Rockpoint Funding, LLC  (“Rockpoint”) to produce a person most knowledgeable for deposition.  Rockpoint is a legal funding company offering medical liens, case costs, and client funding to law firms.  Mr. Ghaneeian is the owner and founder of Rockpoint.  Ms. Herrera filed oppositions and Defendants filed replies.

            The motions were heard on October 6, 2023.  The Court continued the motions because nonparties Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint were not personally served with the motions.  Defendants were directed to file proofs of service showing personal service was effectuated.

            On October 19, 2023, Defendants filed proofs of service.

            On October 20, 2023, Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint filed a consolidated opposition to the motions.  They request sanctions against Defendants and their counsel.  Defendants filed replies.

            On November 2, 2023, the Court continued the motions to provide Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint an opportunity to file a sur-reply because Defendants raised an issue in Reply for the first time.  Specifically, Defendants relied on a 2019 Facility Underwriting Notice (“the Notice”) to argue that Rockpoint was involved in funding Plaintiff’s medical care and therefore may have relevant evidence to provide.

            On November 13, 2023, Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint filed their sur-repy indicating that the Notice was already refuted by Dr. Pasqwuale Monetsano, who testified that Rockpoint did not fund Dr. Montesano’s care provided to Plaintiff.  On that basis, Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint contend the Court should deny the motions to compel.  In the alternative, they argue that to the extent the Court allows any deposition of Mr. Ghaneeian and/or Rockpoint it should specifically limit the scope of that deposition to questions regarding pre-settlement advance and the Notice.

II.        LEGAL STANDARDS

            Any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)  A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and the testimony of a nonparty deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)  If a nonparty 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. §§ 2024.480, 2025.480.)   

            If the nonparty deponent is a natural person, any person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy of it to that person.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b)(1).)  Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require the personal attendance and testimony of the nonparty deponent, if the subpoena so specifies.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c)(1).)   

            “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)  

III.      DISCUSSION

            Defendants move for an order compelling Mr. Ghaneeian and Rockpoint’s person most knowledgeable to appear for deposition.  Defendants argue Rockpoint paid for Plaintiff’s medical treatment.  As such, the depositions are needed (1) to determine if Plaintiff’s medical treatment and expenses were reasonable and necessary, (2) to determine bias or financial incentives of witnesses, and (3) to quantify the potential jurors in the jury pool. 

            As noted at the prior hearing, Defendants do not show that Mr. Ghaneeian, as an apex official, has unique or superior knowledge of this matter or the funding provided by Rockpoint to Ms Herrera.  Accordingly, Defendants are not entitled to an order compelling Mr. Ghaneeian to appear for deposition.  

            However, the deposition of Rockpoint’s person most knowledgeable (PMK) is a different matter.  Rockpoint and Ms. Herrera argue that Rockpoint should not be compelled to produce a PMK for deposition because Rockpoint and Ms. Herrera’s financial records are private and protected from disclosure.  In support, Rockpoint and Ms. Herrera cite Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652 (Valley Bank) and Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379.  These cases are also unavailing.  Valley Bank concerned the disclosure of nonparty bank records.  Tylo held that the marital relationship serves as a foundation for assertion of right to privacy of information regarding emotional distress arising from the marital relationship.  Here, Defendants seek testimony and records directly pertaining to Rockpoint’s role in Ms. Herrera’s case.  Nonparty financial records or the right to privacy in the marital relationship are not issues in this case.  

Furthermore, the Notice provides a clear basis for the deposition of Rockpoint’s PMK.  Though Rockpoint contends that Dr. Montesano’s deposition testimony rebuts the significane of the Notice, Defendants are certainly entitled to test the truthfulness of Dr. Montesano through additional depositions.  Defendants seek relevant information with Rockpoint’s PMK deposition and thus are entitled to it.

While Defendants are entitled to that deposition, they are not entitled to use it as a fishing expedition relating to Rockpoint’s business. Accordingly, the Court hereby limits the deposition to inquiries relating to the Notice, including any agreements between Rockpoint and Dr. Montesano, and any pre-settlement advance provided to Plaintiff.

            Monetary Sanctions

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 is a general statute authorizing the Court to impose discovery sanctions for “misuse of the discovery process,” which includes (without limitation) a variety of conduct such as: making, without substantial justification, an unmeritorious objection to discovery; making an evasive response to discovery; and unsuccessfully and without substantial justification making or opposing a motion to compel or limit discovery.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010.)¿¿¿ 

            Rockpoint and Mr. Ghaneeian request sanctions against Defendants and their counsel.  Given that the Court has granted the motion to compel as to Rockpoint, sanctions are not warranted for that motion.  Nor are sanctions warranted for the motion to compel Mr. Ghaneeian’s deposition, which the Court finds was brought with substantial justification.

IV.       CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel Ramin Ghaneeian to personally appear for deposition is DENIED.

The motion to compel Rockpoint Funding, LLC to produce a person most knowledgeable for deposition is GRANTED.  That deposition is to be limited to questions relating to the Notice, including any agreements with Dr. Dr. Montesano, and pre-settlement advances provided to Plaintiff.  Rockpoint is ordered to produce a person most knowledgeable for deposition within 30 days of this order.

Rockpoint and Mr. Ghaneeian’s request for sanctions is denied.

Moving party to give notice. 

Dated:   November 28, 2023                                   ___________________________________

                                                                                    Lee S. Arian

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.