Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV07655, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 20STCV07655    Hearing Date: June 22, 2023    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Produce Documents from Deposition

Moving Party:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holloway Drive, LLC

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND:

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff Zohar Management, LLC filed its Complaint against Defendants Holloway Drive, LLC, Lubov Azria, Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, Sherri Ann Rogers, Utopia Development, Inc., and Daniel Angelo Moizel. This action arises out of allegations of the breach of a real estate contract regarding four residential units located at 8451 Carlton Way, Los Angeles, CA 90069.

On June 26, 2020, by request of Plaintiff, the Clerk’s Office dismissed without prejudice Defendants Daniel Angelo Moizel and Utopia Development, Inc.

On June 2, 2021, Plaintiff amended its Complaint to substitute Doe 1 for Compass, Inc.

On August 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.

On October 27, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Holloway Drive, LLC and Lubov Azria filed their Cross-Complaint against Defendants/Cross-Defendants Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, and Sherri Ann Rogers.

On November 1, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On November 3, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Defendants Compass California, Inc., Shane Douglas Markland, Anthony J. Stellini, and Sherri Ann Rogers filed their Verified Answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.

On November 30, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Defendants filed their Answer to Cross-Complainants’ Cross-Complaint.

        On May 25, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holloway Drive, LLC filed its Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Produce Documents from Deposition. The Motion includes a Request for Sanctions.

        No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“If a motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court 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., § 2025.450, subd. (g).)

II.        Discussion

A.      Discovery

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Holloway Drive, LLC moves the Court to: (1) continue the discovery deadlines based on good cause; and (2) compel Plaintiff to produce the documents from a previously-taken deposition of its person most knowledgeable. (Motion, pp. 3:23–25, 4:17–19, 5:18, 6:24.)

Plaintiff has not opposed or otherwise responded to the Motion.

The Court has previously ruled that the deadline for discovery motions was not continued when the Court continued the trial.

This motion is untimely.  The Court exercises its discretion not to grant a continuance of the deadline.

III.     Conclusion

The Motion is DENIED.