Defendants' motion to compel Plaintiff Peter Voutsas to answer deposition questions and to produce documents at the deposition is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are incorrect in arguing that the stipulated judgment in the Lazar action precludes Defendants from asking the questions of Voutsas at his deposition to which Defendants' motion seeks answers and from obtaining from Voutsas the documents that the Defendants' motion seeks to have produced at the deposition. To date, the Court has not ruled that the stipulated judgment in the Lazar action has any preclusive effect in this action. Plaintiffs' one attempt so far in this action to secure a ruling on the preclusive effect of the stipulated judgment in the Lazar action failed when the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary adjudication on their breach of contract claim – a motion that rested on the asserted preclusive effect of that judgment. Thus, at this stage in the litigation, Voutsas cannot use the stipulated judgment in the Lazar judgment to avoid answering questions at his deposition and avoid producing documents for the deposition. The questions to which Defendants seek answers and the documents that Defendants seek to have produced are relevant to the parties' claims and defenses in this action.
While not listed in a separate statement under California Rule of Court 3.1345(c), the documents that Defendants seek to be produced for the deposition are described in detail at pages 15-16 of Defendants' motion in support of their motion to compel and page 3, line 26 to page 5, line 20, in the declaration of counsel Michael Melendez in support of the motion. The Court finds that Defendants have good cause to compel Voutsas to produce those documents.
The deposition questions for which the motion seeks to compel answers also are not listed in a separate statement. There is no mystery to what those questions are, however. They are questions to which Voutsas's counsel objected at the deposition on the ground that questions purportedly invaded the stipulated judgment in the Lazar action.
Defendants' memorandum in support of their motion stated that Defendants' conditionally were seeking sanctions against Voutsas for the position he took in connection with this discovery dispute. Defendants did not request sanctions in their notice of motion, however. Accordingly, the Court is declining to impose sanctions against Voutsas.
