Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00011616-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
DEPT.:
EVENT DATE:
EVENT TIME:
HALL OF JUSTICE
TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024
05/24/2024 09:00:00 AM C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin
CASE NO.:
CASE CATEGORY:
EVENT TYPE:
CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:
Civil - Unlimited PI/PD/WD - Other Discovery Hearing 37-2023-00011616-CU-PO-CTL STEWART VS GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 02/01/2024
Plaintiff's motion to compel further answers and documents at PMK deposition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
A. The motion to compel further answers is granted. It is clear to the court that Ms. Rosas was not adequately prepared to be the person most knowledgeable for Greystar on the matter set forth in the deposition notice. Accordingly, Greystar is ordered to produce a properly prepared Ms. Rosas (or another PMK) again for deposition. Greystar is further directed to provide proof that the witness has 'undertaken some effort to familiarize themselves with the areas of their supposed 'knowledge.'' Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1397. However, the PMK need not personally make an inquiry to determine that all responsive documents are produced. Id. at 1396. The parties must meet and confer on the precise date, time, and location of the deposition, but it is to occur within 20 days.
B. The motion to compel further responses to the document requests set forth in the deposition notice is granted in part and denied in part.
The motion is denied as to requests 1-2, 12, 17, 19, 22, 30, 32, 34-36, 39. Sufficient responses have been provided pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.220.
The motion is denied as to requests 7-10, 20, 23-24, 26-27, 29, and 31. Sufficient responses have been provided pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.230.
The motion is granted as to request 14. Greystar objections lack merit. No showing has been made supporting any claim of privilege. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 881, 887 ('The burden of establishing that a particular matter is privileged is on the party asserting the privilege.').
The motion is granted as to request 21. Greystar's response does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.210(a).
The motion is denied as to requests 25 and 33. Plaintiff failed to accurately set forth Greystone's responses to these requests in the separate statement. See CRC 3.1345(c)(2).
The motion is denied as to RFPs 37 and 38. As to the former, the term 'YOUR' as Greystar – not Rosas. With respect to the latter, plaintiff has failed to explain why a further response should be Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3084658 2 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: STEWART VS GREYSTAR CALIFORNIA INCORPORATED 37-2023-00011616-CU-PO-CTL compelled. Section 2031.230 is inapplicable as Greystar objected to the request rather than claiming an inability to comply. Compare Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.210(a)(2) with (a)(3).
The motion is granted as to request 40. Greystar did not respond to this request.
In sum, Greystar must serve a response to request 40, and further responses to requests 14 and 21, at the place and time of the PMK deposition. If Greystar is withholding any documents on the basis of privilege, it must provide sufficient factual information for plaintiff to evaluate the merits of the claim, 'including, if necessary, a privilege log.' Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.240(c)(1).
C. All requests for sanctions are denied. The court finds that circumstances make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(j). Indeed, the foregoing is somewhat of a mixed bag.
Plaintiff's request is also denied as improperly noticed. See Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.040 ('A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought.').
Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS
3084658 2