Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 20STCV35154, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 20STCV35154    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    Dept: 55

BROADWAY EXCH. BLDG., LP v. SANDERSON                    20STCV35154

Hearing Date:  10/27/22,  Dept. 55

#8:   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AT DEPOSITION BY VIANEY ELIZABETH SANDERSON AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,556.25 AGAINST ATTORNEY BRYAN CASTORINA AND DEFENDANT VIANEY ELIZABETH SANDERSON.

 

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

 

MP:  Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BROADWAY EXCHANGE BUILDING, LP

RP:  Defendant VIANEY SANDERSON

 

Summary

 

On 9/15/20, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BROADWAY EXCHANGE filed a Complaint alleging that, around February 2015, it entered into a commercial lease, and a personal guaranty, with Defendant/Cross-Complainant VIANEY SANDERSON, to rent the premises, but starting around April 2020, SANDERSON failed to pay rent, and so Plaintiff seeks to recover damages it incurred as a result of SANDERSON breaching her lease and personal guaranty.

On 3/15/21, Defendant SANDERSON filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint, against Plaintiff, alleging that cross-defendants used the Covid-19 situation as a pretense to steal cross-complainant’s bar that she was precluded from operating during the pandemic.

On 6/23/21, Cross-Complainant filed a request for dismissal of the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

MP Positions

 

Moving party requests an order compelling Defendant VIANEY ELIZABETH SANDERSON to answer deposition questions, and awarding sanctions ($3,556.25), on bases including the following:

 

·         The deponent refused to answer some deposition questions, at the direction of her counsel, without substantial justification.

·         Defendant Sanderson refused to answer any of these questions, objecting solely on the ground of relevancy.

·         The questions are directly relevant to the issue of defendant Sanderson failing to pay  rent owing to plaintiff under a written lease between the parties, and her ability to so pay then and now.

·         Discovery establishes that defendant abandoned her leased Premises while still having an obligation and ability to pay rent due under the lease.

·         Depositions questions are stated at pages 2-through-4 of the motion.  The questions were pertaining to whether or not defendant Sanderson has paid her rental and financial obligations that are due and owing under the lease; whether or not Sanderson had the ability to do so; whether or not Sanderson abandoned the leases premises; and what Sanderson is now doing with her other businesses.

 

RP Positions

 

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

 

·         Moving Party did not meet and confer prior to filing the Motion to Compel. The attorneys’ arguments on the record at the deposition does not satisfy the Meet and Confer requirement.

·         None of the disputed discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

·         Information about Sanderson’s other or subsequent business interests and bars is irrelevant to whether she paid Broadway Exchange rent when due.

·         Sanderson’s current employment and the real property she owns is not relevant to whether she owed rent and paid rent over 2 years ago for the period April – September 2020.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

The motion is granted, as prayed.

The relevancy objection, upon which the deponent repeatedly and exclusively relied, does not apply to depositions.

“[W]itnesses are expected to endure an occasional irrelevant question without disrupting the deposition process.”  Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1015.

A discovery motion should not be denied automatically based upon the reason that the moving parties failed to meet and confer in good faith.  Obregon v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 434.  “‘A determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate . . . involves the exercise of discretion.’”  Stewart v. Colonial W. Agency (2001) 87 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1016.  Accord Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1293-94.

The Court readily finds a lack of substantial justification for asserting the relevance objection at the deposition, in support of monetary sanctions.  Generally, monetary sanctions are mandatory as to parties losing discovery motions, unless courts find substantial justification or other injustice.  E.g.,  Foothill Properties v. Lyon/Copley Corona Assocs., L.P. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-58.  “ ‘[S]ubstantial justification” has been understood to mean that a justification is clearly reasonable because it is well-grounded in both law and fact.”  Doe v. U.S. Swimming, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1424, 1434.