Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV37923, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37923    Hearing Date: September 7, 2023    Dept: 55

REDIGER INVESTMENT MORTGAGE FUND v. JADE COLLECTIVE,   22STCV37923

Hearing:  9/7/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEPOSITION OF THE PERSON  MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE OF DEFENDANT JADE COLLECTIVE, AND THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REQUESTED IN THE NOTICE THEREOF.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiff

RP:  Defendant

Summary

On 12/5/22, Plaintiff REDIGER INVESTMENT MORTGAGE FUND filed a Complaint for Damages For Breach Of Written Lease, alleging that Defendant leased a commercial premises at 12751 West Foothill Boulevard, Sylmar, but has breached the written lease in various ways, including by failing to pay monthly installments of rent due.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order compelling the deposition with document production of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (P.M.K.), and imposing monetary sanctions in the amount of $6,283.00 as against Defendant and its counsel, on grounds including the following:

·         No substantial justification for Jade’s failure to (a) make the P.M.K.(s) available for deposition on the noticed date of 8/2/23, and produce the required and requested documents, and (b) meet and confer in good faith and confirm proposed alternative date(s) in writing.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         Defendant’s counsel has made all reasonable efforts to coordinate and schedule the deposition and related document production of Defendant’s P.M.K., its Chief Executive Officer, and sole officer and director, Andranik Aroyan.

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted as to compelling, and denied as to sanctions.

Commencing at 10:00 a.m., on 10/1/23,  Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable shall attend a deposition, by remote electronic means called “Zoom.”  CCP  § 2025.310.

A motion lies to compel deposition attendance and document production, after service of a deposition notice, where a deponent fails to appear at, or proceed with, a deposition, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410.  CCP §2025.450(a). 

No meet and confer is required to compel initial deposition attendance, but instead there must be a declaration showing that moving party inquired about the nonappearance.  CCP §2025.450(b)(2).   "Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue," including by rescheduling.  Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1124.  See also L.A.S.C.L.R. 3.26 (“guidelines adopted by the Los Angeles County Bar Association are adopted as civility in litigation recommendations….”).

The Court finds substantial regarding setting a deposition date, and awards no 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.4^th 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.