Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00045336-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-03-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 28, 2024

03/29/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2022-00045336-CU-BC-CTL ESPARZA VS CANYON CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant/Cross-Complainant Canyon Construction Inc.'s motion to compel Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Erick Esparza and Cross-Defendant Bianca Esparza to permit a site inspection is GRANTED.

'For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. The phrase 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence' makes it clear that the scope of discovery extends to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial.

Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic and common sense. These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.' (Lipton v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611–1612.) To compel a site inspection, the moving party must show 'good cause.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1).) However, the moving party may meet this burden 'simply by a fact-specific showing of relevance.' (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98; accord Glenfed Dev. Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1117.) This is a construction dispute involving a home remodel. Erick alleges that Canyon invoiced him for work that was not performed, that Canyon failed to perform all of the work required by the construction contract, that the work Canyon did perform was not performed in a workmanlike manner, and that he was required to complete and correct portions of the work at his own expense. Canyon, in turn, alleges that it completed all the work as required by the construction contract and various change orders, and that the Esparzas failed to pay all of the invoices for/the reasonable value of that work.

Given the allegations in this case, there is good cause to permit Canyon's expert (general contractor Sherwin Lisker of Palomar Consulting Group) to conduct a site inspection of the Esparzas' home. The home is the focal point of the entire dispute. The quality of Canyon's work, the reasonable value of Canyon's work, and the reasonable value of the work allegedly needed to complete and correct Canyon's work are all at issue in this case and issues upon which Lisker is expected to opine. Lisker also declares that he will not be able to finalize his opinions without conducting a site inspection.

The Esparzas objected that a site inspection was unnecessary because Canyon had an opportunity to examine the property approximately a year before this case was filed, the issues with the work have Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066537  45 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  ESPARZA VS CANYON CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00045336-CU-BC-CTL since been repaired, documents related to the repairs have been produced, and an inspection would be an invasion of their privacy. None of these objections have merit.

The motion to compel is therefore granted. The site inspection shall take place within 30 days, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

The court will hear argument regarding Canyon's request for $4,010 in monetary sanctions.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3066537  45