Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC07941, Date: 2023-08-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07941    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 26

Pathak v. Mazra, et al.

ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY

(CCP §§ 94, 95)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Farouque Mazra’s Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery is GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff Suresh Pathak (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of legal retainer agreement against Defendant Farouque Mazra (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on August 21, 2023.

On October 5, 2023, the Court overruled Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. (Minute Order, 10/05/23.) Defendant filed an answer on October 24, 2023 and concurrently filed the instant Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 26, 2023.

Discussion

Discovery in a limited jurisdiction action is permitted only to the extent provided by in Code of Civil Procedure section 94, which includes any combination of 35 written discovery requests and one oral or written deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 94.) To obtain discovery beyond the extent permitted by section 94,

The court may, on noticed motion and subject to such terms and conditions as are just, authorize a party to conduct additional discovery, but only upon a showing that the moving party will be unable to prosecute or defend the action effectively without the additional discovery. In making a determination under this section, the court shall take into account whether the moving party has used all applicable discovery in good faith, and whether the party has attempted to secure the additional discovery by stipulation or by means other than formal discovery.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 95, subd. (a).) Defendant presents evidence that they inadvertently served discovery in excess of the number allowed in a court of limited jurisdiction. (Motion, Antonyan Decl., Exh. 1.) Plaintiff responded to the initial 35 requests and objected to the remaining requests on the grounds that they violated the limitation set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 94. (Id. at Exh. 2.) Following a meet and confer effort, Defendant served 30 additional requests, to which Plaintiff again objected based on the 35-request limit. (Id. at Exh. 3.) Defendant argues that unless the 30 additional discovery requests are authorized, Defendant will be prevented from obtaining necessary discovery in this action.

The Court finds Defendant has made a showing that they will be unable to defend the action effectively without the additional discovery. Specifically, Defendant will not have obtained any copies of the agreement breached, knowledge of how the damages of Plaintiff’s complaint were calculated, knowledge of what payments were made to Plaintiff, nor knowledge of what work was performed under the agreement to justify the amounts claimed. (Motion, Antonyan Decl., ¶9.)

In opposition, Plaintiff disputes that Defendant would be prevented from defending this action by claiming, without evidence, that Defendant is in possession of the agreement and invoices showing what payments were made and the balance. (Opp., p. 5:15-18.) Plaintiff also argues that there are other available avenues for Defendant to seek discovery but does not articulate any specific avenues. The Court is cognizant that answering additional discovery requests requires additional time by Plaintiff but does not find that Defendant was not acting in good faith. Propounding more discovery than allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 94 was done inadvertently by defense counsel and Defendant sought to informally resolve the dispute with Plaintiff prior to filing this action.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Farouque Mazra’s Motion for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.