Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV02634, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV02634    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Nobu Jimenez, et al. v. LPC 1829 E Workman Ave LLC 

Defendant LPC 1829 E Workman Ave LLC’s Motion to Compel the Production of Documents at Deposition of Plaintiff Nobu Jimenez 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS Defendant LPC 1829 E Workman Ave LLC’s motion to compel the production of documents at deposition of Plaintiff Nobu Jimenez. Plaintiff Jimenez must appear for further deposition within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order and produce without objection all responsive documents requested in the Notice of Deposition previously served on Jimenez on February 21, 2025. 

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff‘s attorney of record, Jacob Partiyeli of the Law Offices of Jacob Partiyeli, in the reduced amount of $835.00, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing this motion and attending the hearing on it, multiplied by the hourly rate of $195.00 for a subtotal of $585.00, plus the court reporter cost of $250.00. Jacob Partiyeli of the Law Offices of Jacob Partiyeli must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 calendar days of the Court’s order. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a residential habitability case. On August 28, 2023, plaintiffs Nobu Jimenez (Jimenez) and Austin Garcia (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendant LPC 1829 E Workman Ave LLC (Defendant) and Does 1 through 100, alleging causes of action for violation of California Civil Code section 1942.4, tortious breach of the warranty of habitability, private nuisance, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., negligence, breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence per se, violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and toxic environmental mold tort. 

On April 24, 2025, Defendant moved to compel the production of documents at deposition of Plaintiff Jimenez. Jimenez did not timely oppose the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following: 

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice. 

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (a)-(b).) 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES 

            “Except as provided in (b), any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: … (3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible things; … (5) To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subds. (a)(3), (a)(5).) The Court notes that Defendant did not provide a separate statement with its motion. The Court will still consider the motion, but admonishes Defendant to comply with the requirements of the California Rules of Court going forward. (See Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 [court retains discretion to deny discovery motion due to defective or missing separate statement.) 

DISCUSSION 

Meet and Confer 

            The Court find’s Defendant’s efforts to meet and confer sufficient. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2); Day Decl., ¶¶ 6-10; Minute Order (5/14/25).) 

Summary of Arguments 

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff Jimenez to produce documents in her possession, custody, and control responsive to the Notice of Deposition served on February 21, 2025. Defendant contends that at Jimenez’s deposition on March 12, 2025, she mentioned numerous responsive documents that she previously produced to her attorney but failed to produce at that deposition. Defendant contends good cause exists to compel the production of Plaintiff Jimenez’s documents because the Request for Production of Documents at Deposition requested that she produce at her deposition all medical records, billings, photographs, videos, documents supporting loss of income, documentation of property damage, witness statements, and any documents in support of her claims. Defendant contends Jimenez produced no documents at her deposition and had previously produced no documents in discovery. Defendant contends Jimenez testified she had such documents supporting her claims, that she was still in possession of these documents, and that she turned over all of these documents to her attorney in approximately January 2023. Defendant contends it is severely prejudiced by its inability to obtain these documents and that there is no question these documents are relevant. 

Plaintiff Jimenez filed a late opposition arguing that Defendant has not demonstrated good cause for the requested documents and has not complied with the procedural requirement governing discovery motions. 

Analysis           

            The Court finds Defendant has demonstrated good cause to compel Jimenez to produce the documents requested and to sit for further deposition so that Defendant may question and examine Jimenez regarding these documents. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.450, subds. (a)-(b).) Defendant served a Notice of Deposition on Plaintiff Jimenez on February 21, 2025, in which Defendant requested Jimenez produce various documents, including but not limited to documents regarding medical treatments, loss of income, and photographs of property damage. (Day Decl., Ex. A.) Jimenez does not appear to have objected to these requests before sitting for deposition. (See generally, Day Decl. and Plaintiff’s Opp.) Jimenez testified at deposition that she had documents responsive to these requests and had provided them to her attorney in 2023. (Day Decl., Exs. B-D.) Jimenez did not produce any such documents at her deposition. (Day Decl., ¶ 4.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff Jimenez must appear for further deposition within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order and produce without objection all responsive documents requested in the Notice of Deposition served on Jimenez on February 21, 2025. 

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Jimenez’ attorney of record, Jacob Partiyeli of the Law Offices of Jacob Partiyeli, in the reduced amount of $835.00, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing this motion and attending the hearing on it, multiplied by the hourly rate of $195.00 for a subtotal of $585.00, plus the court reporter cost of $250.00. Plaintiff’s attorney must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 calendar days of the Court’s order. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Defendant LPC 1829 E Workman Ave LLC’s motion to compel the production of documents at deposition of Plaintiff Nobu Jimenez. Plaintiff Jimenez must appear for further deposition within 20 calendar days of the Court’s order and produce without objection all responsive documents requested in the Notice of Deposition previously served on Jimenez on February 21, 2025. 

The Court further GRANTS Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Jimenez’ attorney of record, Jacob Partiyeli of the Law Offices of Jacob Partiyeli, in the reduced amount of $835.00, comprised of 3.0 hours preparing this motion and attending the hearing on it, multiplied by the hourly rate of $195.00 for a subtotal of $585.00, plus the court reporter cost of $250.00. Plaintiff’s attorney, Jacob Partiyeli of the Law Offices of Jacob Partiyeli, must pay said monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel within 30 calendar days of the Court’s order.