Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STLC00972 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC00972, Date: 2022-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00972 Hearing Date: September 19, 2022 Dept: 26

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(CCP § 2025.420)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Lev Stark and Amy Stark’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. DEFENDANT LEV STARK’S DEPOSITION IS LIMITED TO FOUR HOURS AND DEFENDANT AMY STARK’S DEPOSITION IS LIMITED TO TWO HOURS. THE PARTIES ARE TO MEET AND CONFER REGARDING THE DATE AND TIME OF EACH DEPOSITION, WHICH ARE TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER. BOTH PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005(b)) OK

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for breach of residential lease agreement.

MOTION: A protective order is necessary to protect Defendants from unnecessary deposition. The full-day depositions sought by Plaintiff constitute undue burden and expense and seek unreasonably cumulative and duplicative discovery. The conduct of Plaintiff and counsel is abusive and should be sanctioned in the amount of $5,400.00.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiff is entitled to take Defendants’ deposition to determine why they failed to pay rent due. They unreasonably want to limit Defendant Lev Stark’s deposition to 90 minutes and eliminate Amy Stark’s deposition entirely. Plaintiff is entitled to sanctions of $5,000.00.

REPLY: This action involves a simple issue of failure to pay back rent. There are more simple discovery methods than hours of deposition testimony for Plaintiff to determine “why” Defendants did not pay the alleged rent.

ANALYSIS:

On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff Pentacon Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of lease agreements against Defendants Lev Stark and Amy Stark (“Defendants”). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 9, 2022 and Defendants Answered on April 12, 2022. Defendants filed the instant Motion for Protective Order on June 20, 2022. Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 6, 2022 and Defendants replied on September 13, 2022.

Evidentiary Objections

Defendants’ evidentiary objections to Plaintiff’s supporting evidence are ruled on as follows:

To Wohrle Decl.:

· Sustained as to Nos. 1, 2, 8

· Overruled as to Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Discussion

Defendants seek a protective order from appearing for deposition, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), which provides: “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Pro., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) A meet and confer declaration is required to support the Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).)

The Motion argues that Plaintiff’s insistence on a full day deposition for Defendant Lev Stark and a half-day deposition for Defendant Amy Stark is unduly burdensome in a straightforward case involving missed rent payments. (Motion, Iadevaia Decl., ¶28 and Exh. 11.) Defendants point out that they already provided full responses to significant written discovery at the representation of Plaintiff’s counsel that a settlement figure would be discussed after review of the responses. (Id. at ¶¶21-27 and Exhs. 8-9.) After responses to the written requests were served, however, Plaintiff then sought to schedule Defendants’ depositions without engaging in settlement discussions. (Id. at Exh. 13.)

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to take Defendants’ depositions to determine why the rent payments were missed. It contends that the written discovery responses did not yield much information because the parties had previously exchanged documents when Defendant Lev Stark sued Plaintiff in Small Claims Court, and Defendants simply produced the same documents. (Opp., Wohrle Decl., ¶¶2-3, 6.) Also, Plaintiff contends Defendants’ responses to the Form Interrogatories were too vague to be helpful. (Id at ¶¶8-10.) To some extent, the responses also reflect Defendants’ affirmative defenses of statute of limitations, waiver, unclean hands, etc., but do not provide supporting facts. (Id. at ¶10.)

Both parties raise legitimate concerns regarding the taking of Defendants’ depositions in this action. On one hand, given the history of litigation between the parties, it is surprising that Plaintiff does not have a better understanding of Defendants’ defenses and the reasons rent allegedly went unpaid. It is also surprising that Plaintiff has not engaged in settlement discussions after agreeing to do so. On the other, Plaintiff is entitled to take Defendants’ depositions and the information sought is within the broad scope of discoverable information. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 94, subd. (b); Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Also, as noted above, Defendants’ responses to the written discovery requests were less than helpful. Finally, it appears the dispute regarding the amount of rent owed centers around different ledgers kept by the parties. (Motion, Iadevaia Decl., Exh. 10; Opp., Wohrle Decl., ¶8.) Deposition testimony could be crucial to understanding these documents.

Ultimately, the parties should be able to resolve this dispute through mutual compromise. Plaintiff made the following offer: full day deposition for Defendant Lev Stark and half-day deposition for Defendant Amy Stark. (Motion, Iadevaia Decl., ¶28 and Exh. 11.) Defendants offered a 90-minute deposition for Defendant Lev Stark and no deposition for Defendant Amy Stark. (Id. at Exh. 13.) Therefore, the Court finds that while Plaintiff is entitled to take both Defendants’ depositions, the amount of time should be limited. Defendant Lev Stark’s deposition is limited to four hours and Defendant Amy Stark’s deposition is limited to two hours.

Both parties seek sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (h), which requires the Court to sanction any party “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h).) The Court declines to award sanctions against either party.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.