Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00053791-CU-WM-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 21, 2024

03/22/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Writ of Mandate Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00053791-CU-WM-CTL NGUYEN VS. LA JOLLA RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court is inclined to continue the hearing on Respondent's motion and require the parties to further meet and confer. The court will hear from the parties on whether to address the motion in this manner in light of the discussion set forth below.

This motion is brought by Respondent and four 'non-parties': The Prescott Companies (Respondent's management company) and three of Respondent's former board members (Kevin Sgambelluri, Jonathan Erickson, and Stephanie Walker Emerson).

The movants seek a protective order to: 1) postpone their depositions unilaterally set for January 30 or 31, 2024; 2) prohibit the duplicative or cumulative depositions of the board members; and 3) narrow the scope of documents demanded in the deposition notices and deposition subpoenas issued by Petitioner.

At the time the movants filed this motion on January 29, 2024, the movants contended they had no choice but to file this motion given they received no response to meet and confer efforts. (ROA #17, at Meerson Dec., ¶ 17.) The movants' counsel attests he emailed meet and confer letters to Petitioner's counsel on January 23 and 24, 2024. Both letters advised Petitioner that a motion for a protective order would be filed if Petitioner did not respond by January 25, 2024. The movants' counsel also attests to an attempt to meet and confer telephonically on January 24, 2024. On January 25 and 26, 2024, Respondent served objections to the deposition notice to Respondent and the four deposition subpoenas at issue. The movants' counsel attests that despite these efforts, he did not hear back from Petitioner's counsel. (Meerson Dec., ¶¶ 10-17.) In opposition, Petitioner contends the movants have misrepresented to the court that no substantive meet and confer efforts have taken place. Petitioner's counsel attests the parties already agreed to postpone the depositions pursuant to a telephonic meet and confer conversation that took place on January 26, 2024 (three days before the instant motion was filed), but the movants' counsel never provided alternative dates and times. (ROA #24, at Richter Dec., ¶ 2.) In reply, the movants argue Petitioner has mischaracterized the meet and confer efforts. The movants acknowledge during a telephone conversation on January 26, 2024 (the same day this motion was being finalized and prepared for filing), the parties verbally agreed to continue the depositions. However, for the first time in reply, movants contend their counsel indicated he would send an email encapsulating the telephone conversation for Petitioner's counsel to respond and confirm the depositions were off calendar. The movants' reply includes the January 26, 2024 email from their counsel requesting Petitioner's counsel to confirm in writing the depositions were taken off calendar by the end of the day.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082194  19 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  NGUYEN VS. LA JOLLA RACQUET CLUB CONDOMINIUM OWNERS  37-2023-00053791-CU-WM-CTL (ROA #25, Ex. 1.) The movants argue because they did not receive a response to this email by January 29, 2024, and given the litigious nature of Petitioner and the general lack of communication from Petitioner's counsel, it was in the movants' best interest to file this motion. The movants contend there would have been no need to file this motion if Petitioner's counsel confirmed in writing the depositions were off calendar. (ROA #25, p. 6: 22-23.) First, although meet and confer efforts were weak and Petitioner did not respond to Respondent's request to confirm in writing the depositions were off calendar before the instant motion was filed, it appears the parties have agreed to postpone the depositions. Moreover, the movants have not offered any argument on how long the depositions should be postponed. Thus, it is unclear whether a protective order is necessary as to this issue. Instead, the court believes that further meet and confer efforts will result in mutually agreeable deposition dates.

Second, at this stage, a ruling on whether the depositions of the former members are cumulative or duplicative is premature.

Finally, as to the disputes concerning the document requests in the deposition notices and the deposition subpoenas, the movants have served objections to these requests prior to filing the instant motion. (ROA #17, at Exs. H, I.) The court is inclined to allow the depositions to first proceed, and if any issues remain following the depositions, they can be addressed at a discovery status conference and if necessary, via a motion to compel.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3082194  19