Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 19SMCV01651, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV01651 Hearing Date: October 19, 2023 Dept: M
CASE NO.: 19SMCV01651
MOTION: Motion
for Reconsideration
HEARING DATE: 10/19/2023
Legal
Standard
A non-prevailing party may make
a motion to reconsider and enter a different order under the following
conditions: (1) brought before the same judge that made the order sought to be
reconsidered; (2) made within 10 days after service upon the party of the
notice of entry of the order (extended under CCP § 1013 for type of service);
(3) based on new or different facts, circumstances or law than those before the
court at the time of the original ruling; (4) supported by a declaration
stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or
different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and (5) the motion must
be made and decided before entry of judgment. (CCP, § 1008.)
The legislature intended to restrict
motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court
some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for
not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th
1494, 1500 [misinterpretation of the law is not a new or different
matter].) Thus, “[t]o be entitled to reconsideration, a party
should show that (1) evidence of new or different facts exist, and (2) the
party has a satisfactory explanation for failing to produce such evidence at an
earlier time.” (Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)
The moving party must demonstrate that such newly discovered evidence could not, with
reasonable diligence, have previously discovered and produced. (Wilcox v.
Ford (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1170.)
The court may also reconsider
its prior interim orders on its own motion to correct its own errors. (Le
Francoise v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-09.)
Analysis
Defendant LeDuff moves for
reconsideration of the August 24, 2023, order on the motion to quash the
deposition subpoena to BDA Sports Management. Defendant asserts that the Court
should allow the deposition subpoena to move forward regarding Plaintiff’s drug
abuse, i.e., categories 2-4, 6 and 8 and RPD nos. 3-9. The Court held that the cited
categories sought only inadmissible character evidence of Plaintiff’s past drug
use. The Court reasoned that BDA’s knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s drug use was
disconnected from any abuse she allegedly suffered. In addition, whether Oubre falsified
prescriptions did not bear on any issues presented by the pleadings. Finally,
the Court found that BDA’s understanding of Oubre’s propensity to do drugs would
not aid in Defendant’s defense of the complaint or prosecution of any
crossclaims.
New or Different Facts
Defendant argues new or different
facts exist which, if considered, would have resulted in a different order. Defendant
reasons that at the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel represented to the Court that
Ms. LeDuff had testified at her deposition that Plaintiff had never attacked
her while on drugs. Plaintiff did not make this claim in its moving papers, and
Defendant did not have any meaningful opportunity to respond to this claim
prior to it being raised for the first time at the hearing. However, a review
of the transcript of Ms. LeDuff’s deposition shows that she testified the very
opposite—Oubre attacked her while on drugs. (Sherman Decl., ¶¶ 2-9, Ex. A.)
The Court
finds that Defendant fairly shows new or different facts that could not have
been reasonably brought at the time of the first hearing. Further, Defendant
timely moved for reconsideration. Thus, the Court will consider whether these new
facts change the analysis on the underlying motion.
Merits
“Character evidence” is evidence of a
person's propensity or tendency to act in a certain way under certain
circumstances. (People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289.) Character
evidence is inadmissible when offered to prove his or her conduct on a
specified occasion. (Evid. Code § 1101(a); see Holdgrafer v. Unocal
Corp. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 907, 929 [exception where any otherwise
admissible evidence of habit or custom is admissible to prove conduct on a
specified occasion in conformity with the habit or custom]; see also Evid.
Code, § 1105 [defining habit as a uniform response to a particular repeated set
of stimuli or particular situation that one may find oneself in].)
LeDuff contends that the requested information
is relevant to the domestic violence claims because Oubre was violent during
their relationship and that Oubre abused drugs daily, which led to the violence.
Notably, LeDuff seeks damages for alleged acts of domestic
violence, breach of an oral/implied agreement of support, fraud, and for
retention of certain personal property.
Even if Oubre was on drugs when he
committed domestic violence against LeDuff, the cited deposition categories would
still seek inadmissible character evidence. Essentially, LeDuff seeks to prove
that Oubre has a propensity to do drugs, which led to his acts of domestic violence.
However, Plaintiff’s
propensity to do drugs, especially outside of the context of domestic violence,
is not at issue and does not tend to show any other relevant issue. Defendant
does not explain what this evidence would show beyond demonstrating Plaintiff’s
character to do drugs and be violent. Further, discovery concerning BDA’s
understanding of Oubre’s drug habits is even more attenuated. Therefore, even
if the Court considers the newly submitted deposition testimony, the Court
finds that the subpoena should be modified as previously held.
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.