Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV30438, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30438    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: June 3, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Compel Deposition;

Motion to Compel Compliance

Moving Party: Defendant/Cross-Complainant SCG Bahay Apartments, LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pampanga Master Grill, Inc.

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS ARE DENIED AS MOOT.

THE REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2023, Plaintiff sued Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) negligence. Plaintiff, a commercial tenant of a unit owned and managed by Defendants, alleges another tenant improperly installed duct work; Defendants failed to remove or remedy the improper duct work, preventing Plaintiff from completing construction in Plaintiff’s unit.

Following Defendants’ demurrer, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on May 28, 2024.

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel Further Deposition

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action … without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”  (CCP § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant move to compel the continued deposition of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Pampanga Master Grill, Inc.’s PMK. Defendant represents that Plaintiff’s PMK failed to review the deposition topics, failed to produce all documents, and unilaterally ended the deposition early at the first deposition session. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that they have agreed to allow the continued deposition of their PMK.

As Plaintiff has agreed to the continued deposition of their PMK, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

B. Motion to Compel Compliance

CCP § 2031.320(a) provides “[i]f a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. . . thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.”

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff’s compliance with their statement that all responsive documents would be produced at Plaintiff’s PMK deposition. Defendant represents that Plaintiff’s PMK admitted that she did not produce all responsive documents at the first session of the PMK deposition. In opposition, Plaintiff represents that further documents have been produced. In reply, Defendant argues that the supplemental document production is not code compliant or complete, but has not established that in this motion.

As Plaintiff has produced supplemental documents, the motion is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.