Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 20CHCV00648, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).
Case Number: 20CHCV00648 Hearing Date: April 4, 2023 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 4/4/23
TRIAL DATE: 7/10/23
Case #20CHCV00648
MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES
(Demand for Inspection of Premises &
Related Objects or Things)
Motion filed on 2/6/23.
MOVING PARTY: Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea
Meadows
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and Patricia
Alvarado
NOTICE: ok
Additionally,
the Meadows also request sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel JC
Chimoures and Lubin Pham + Caplin LLP in the amount of $1,380.00 for making the
motion and $3,015.00 for the Meadows’ reasonable expenses for the inspection.
RULING: The motion is denied. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is granted
in the amount of $2,440.00, payable within 30 days.
SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This action arises out of disputes between
neighbors. Plaintiffs Alex Alvarado and
Patricia Alvarado (Plaintiffs) and Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea
Meadows (the Meadows/Defendants) own neighboring properties in a common
interest development managed by Defendant Ridgeview Saugus Homeowners
Association and governed by a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs). On 10/22/20,
Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants and the HOA for: (1) Breach of
Governing Documents, (2) Nuisance, (3) Continuing Trespass, (4) Intentional
Interference With Economic Relations, (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (6)
Negligence and (7) Declaratory Relief.
In part, Plaintiffs claim that their Property was damaged by water
intrusion and/or mold caused by Defendants’ conduct.
On 12/6/22, Defendants served Plaintiffs with a Demand
for Inspection of Premises and Related Objects or Things demanding to inspect
Plaintiffs’ Property on 1/16/23. (Yoakum
Decl. ¶2, Ex.A). On 1/3/23, Plaintiffs
served their Response to the Demand which included objections and a statement
that subject to the objections, Plaintiffs would not make their Property
available for inspection as noticed but would meet and confer with Defendants’
counsel for a mutually agreeable date, time and scope of inspection. (Yoakum Decl. ¶3, Ex.B). On 1/4/23, Defendants sent a meet and confer
letter wherein Defendants agreed to limit the areas/things to be inspected to: (1) The wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ properties; (2) The backyard planters near the wall which separates
the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ properties; (3) The backyard drains and
sprinklers near the wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’
properties; (4) The pavers between the wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ properties and the pool area; (5) The room(s) inside the house in
which water damage and mold is alleged to be due to Defendants’ alleged
negligence. (Yoakum Decl. ¶4,
Ex.C). On 1/10/23, Defendants
followed-up regarding the site inspection.
On 1/11/23, Plaintiffs responded by requesting another demand based on
the limited areas to be inspected and reiterated their unavailability on
1/16/23. Defendants’ counsel explained
that it took almost 2 months to coordinate with their experts so that they
could all inspect the Property on one day and asked Plaintiffs’ counsel for
authority that Defendants have to get dates from Plaintiffs before the
inspection. (Yoakum Decl. ¶5, Ex.D).
On 1/16/23, Defendants’ counsel and experts arrived at
the Property for the inspection; however, Plaintiffs would not allow the
inspection to proceed. (Yoakum Decl.
¶6). Thereafter, Defendants’ counsel
requested that Plaintiffs and their counsel pay for the expenses ($3,015.00)
incurred because of the failed inspection.
(Yoakum Decl. ¶7, Ex.E, F). Plaintiffs’
counsel refused. (Yoakum Decl. ¶8,
Ex.G).
On 2/6/23, Defendants filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order compelling Plaintiffs’ to further respond to Defendants’
Demand for Inspection of Premises and Related Objects or Things and make
themselves, their attorneys, their experts, and their home, also known as 28332
Maxine Lane, Saugus, CA 92350, (Property) ready for inspection on the date and
time set by the Court pursuant to CCP 2031.310.
Additionally, Defendants request sanctions against Plaintiffs and their
counsel JC Chimoures and Lubin Pham + Caplin LLP in the amount of $1,380.00 for
making the motion and $3,015.00 for the Defendants’ reasonable expenses for the
inspection. Plaintiffs have opposed the
motion and requested sanctions against Defendants and their counsel. Defendants have filed a reply to the
opposition.
ANALYSIS
Defendants’ objection to the declaration of JC Chimoures
is overruled.
The subject inspection demand states:
“Defendant and his agents will
inspect YOUR PREMISES located at 28332 Maxine Lane, Saugus, California 91350,
and specifically including the real property, personal property, backyard and
backyard walls. In addition to entering YOUR PREMISES, Defendant and his agents
intend to subject YOUR PREMISES to inspection, measurements, testing and
sampling as follows: Photographing of YOUR PREMISES and RELATED objects or
things; videotaping of YOUR PREMISES and RELATED objects or things; Taking
measurements of YOUR PREMISES and RELATED objects or things; Non-Destructive
testing of YOUR PREMISES and RELATED objects or things.”
(Yoakum Decl., Ex.A).
The demand defined “PREMISES” to “mean the real property
located at 28332 Maxine Lane, Saugus, California 91350, and specifically
including the real property, personal property, backyard, and backyard walls,
each of which is the subject of this lawsuit.”
Id.
Plaintiffs’ response to the demand was:
“Objection: This request is so
vague and ambiguous that responding to it would require Responding Party to
either speculate and/or make a legal conclusion as to the nature and scope of
the documents sought.
Objection. This request is so broad
and unlimited as to time and scope as to be an unwarranted annoyance,
embarrassment, and is oppressive. Responding to this request would be an undue
burden and expense and the request is calculated to annoy and harass Responding
Party. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (b); and Columbia Broadcasting System,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 12, 19.) For example, Mr. Meadows'
demand asks that he inspect every piece of personal property at the Alvarados'
home, including tax return documents, underwear, and their childrens' school
backpacks.
Objection. This request seeks
information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this action; the
information sought by this request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)
Objection. This discovery request
seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client
privilege is broadly construed, and extends to both "factual
information" and "legal advice." (Mitchell v. Superior Court
(1984) 37 Ca1.3d 591, 601.)
Objection. This discovery request
seeks attorney work product in violation of Code of Civil Procedure sections
2018.020 and 2018.030. (Mack v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (1968) 259
Cal.App.2d 7, 10; Williamson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1978) 21
Ca1.3d 829; Brown v. Superior Court of Butte County, (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 430;
and Nacht & Lewis Architects v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 214,)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030 subdivision (a) states, "[a]
writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinion, or legal
research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances
Subdivision (b) expands the protection to include any other attorney
work-product, "unless the court determines that denial of discovery will
unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party's claim
or defense or will result in injustice." The purpose of this protection is
to "[p]reserve the rights of attorneys to prepare cases for trial with
that degree of privacy necessary to encourage them to prepare their cases
thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable
aspects of those cases," and to "[p]revent attorneys from taking
undue advantage of their adversary's industry and efforts." (Code of Civ.
Proc., § 2018.020.) Information created by or resulting from an attorney's work
on behalf of a client that reflects the attorney's evaluation or interpretation
of the law or the facts involved is therefore not discoverable. (Mack v.
Superior Court (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 7, 10.)
Objection. The date noticed was
chosen unilaterally and neither the Alvarados, their experts, nor their counsel
are available.
Subject to the foregoing
objections, Responding Party responds as follows: The Alvarados will not make
their property available for inspection as-noticed, but will meet-and-confer
with the Meadows' counsel for a mutually-agreeable date, time, and scope of
inspection.”
(Yoakum Decl., Ex.B).
The Court finds that the response consists of objections;
therefore, it did not need to be verified.
CCP 2031.250(a). The last
sentence merely reaffirms that Plaintiffs will not allow the inspection to take
place based on the foregoing objections and indicates that Plaintiffs will meet
and confer regarding same. Even if the
last sentence could be considered a substantive response which required
verification, the timely objections did not need to be verified. Therefore, they were preserved.
See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. (1995) 40 CA4th 651,
657-658.
Defendants seem to concede that the demand as stated is
overbroad because in the 1/4/23 meet and confer letter, their counsel agreed to
limit the demand to: (1) The wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ properties; (2) The backyard planters near the wall which separates
the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ properties; (3) The backyard drains and
sprinklers near the wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’
properties; (4) The pavers between the wall which separates the Plaintiffs’ and
Defendants’ properties and the pool area; (5) The room(s) inside the house in
which water damage and mold is alleged to be due to Defendants’ alleged
negligence. (Yoakum Decl. ¶4, Ex.C). Because of the overbreadth of the demand, the
objections based on vagueness and ambiguity, relevance and privileges also had
merit. Also, Defendants unilaterally
selected the date for the inspection.
While there may not be a specific rule or statute prohibiting such
unilateral selection, out of professional courtesy counsel should request
mutually agreeable dates before setting an inspection date. (See The Rutter Group California
Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before
Trial, Ch. 8 Discovery, Section 8:1447 “Comment: The time, place
and conditions should be worked out by stipulation between counsel wherever
possible. It is usually an unnecessary imposition on the court's time to
resolve disputes as to what is a ‘reasonable’ time or place for inspection of
evidence.”)
As noted above, Plaintiffs timely objected to the demand
and stated that they would not allow the inspection to proceed on 1/16/23
because Plaintiffs, their counsel and their experts were unavailable. The fact that Plaintiffs were present at the
Property when Defendants’ counsel and experts showed up on 1/16/23 does not
mean that they were “available” to have the inspection conducted on that date
and time (i.e., Plaintiffs could have been otherwise occupied inside their
home; Plaintiffs could have had someplace to go, etc.).
Given that the inspection date was unilaterally scheduled
by Defendants and Defendants’ counsel and their experts were aware that Plaintiffs
would not allow the inspection to proceed well before the 1/16/23 inspection
date, the Court finds no basis to require Plaintiffs to pay any costs incurred
by Defendants associated with the failed inspection.
The evidence also shows that before 1/16/23, after that
date and before and after this motion was filed, Plaintiffs have attempted to
meet and confer regarding scheduling a mutually agreeable inspection date to no
avail. (See Yoakum Decl., Ex.D;
Chimoures Decl., Ex.1-3).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied. The Court finds that sanctions are warranted
against Defendants Michael Meadows and Althea Meadows and their counsel of
record Robert Yoakum and Fitzgerald Kreditor Bolduc Risbrough LLP in the amount
of $2,440.00 representing 6.1 hours to prepare the opposition, review the reply
and appear at the hearing multiplied by $400/hour. (See Chimoures Decl. ¶¶6-7); CCP
2031.310(h).