Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21SMCV00944, Date: 2022-09-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21SMCV00944    Hearing Date: September 30, 2022    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Kablika, et al., v. Shores Barrington LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                21SMCV00944

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s PMK

HEARING DATE:   9/30/2022

BACKGROUND

On May 24, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the instant nuisance/habitability action against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that they are long-time tenants at defendants’ 17-story apartment building. Plaintiffs allege that in November of 2020, workers installed certain wireless broadband internet service equipment. Shortly after the equipment was installed, Plaintiffs started experiencing headaches, dizziness and fatigue while in their apartment. Defendants have failed to remedy the issue. The Complaint alleges five causes of action (1) private nuisance; (2) breach of warranty of habitability; (3) statutory violation; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (5) disability discrimination and violation of Government Code §§12940 et seq.

On July 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to compel the deposition of Defendant Douglas Emmett Management LLC’s PMK. Defendants oppose.

Legal Standard

Service of a proper deposition notice obligates a party or “party-affiliated” witness (officer, director, managing agent or employee of party) to attend and testify, as well as produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing for inspection and copying. (CCP § 2025.280(a).) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party deponent fails to appear, testify, or produce documents or tangible things for inspection without having served a valid objection under CCP § 2025.410, the deposing party may move for an order compelling attendance, testimony, and production. (CCP § 2025.450(a).) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration, or, when a party deponent fails to attend the deposition, the motion must also be accompanied by a declaration stating that the moving party has contacted the party deponent to inquire about the nonappearance. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(2).)

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide evidence (generally in the form of declarations) showing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice. Courts liberally construe good cause in favor of discovery where facts show the documents are necessary for trial preparation.

Analysis

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiffs and Defendant have agreed to delay the PMK deposition until a mutually agreeable time after all new parties have appeared. (Denis Decl., ¶ 12.) There is only a minor dispute over whether Defendant’s PMK must still produce documents pursuant to the deposition subpoena. Since the deposition is not going forward, there would be no statutory requirement for the documents to be produced. Accordingly, the motion is taken off-calendar or DENIED without prejudice.