Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 20SSTCP00144, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20SSTCP00144    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 86

RUIS RACING LLC v. CALIFORNIA HORSE RACING BOARD

Case No. 20STCP00144

Hearing Date: August 12, 2022

[Tentative]       ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s motion to compel the deposition of Robert Brodnik and production of documents. On July 22, 2022, the court addressed the same issue in the context of Respondent’s motion for a protective order. On July 22, 2022, the court conducted a lengthy hearing and discussed its rationale for granting the protective order. Today’s motion has not changed the court’s view of the facts and the applicable law. Petitioner is not entitled to take the deposition of Brodnik.

The court acknowledges Petitioner is before the court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1094.5 and 1085. Despite Petitioner’s claim it is entitled to relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, “[w]hen the three elements of hearing, evidence, and discretion are found to be present, ‘by the very terms of the statute [§ 1094.5, subd. (a)], the procedure there set forth is to be utilized in all cases in which review of final adjudicatory order is sought by mandate . . . .” (Woods v. Superior Court (1981) 28 Cal.3d 668, 673.)

Petitioner challenges an adjudicatory decision here. The decision involved “ ‘a determination by the agency of what the facts are in relation to specific private rights or interests.’ [Citation.] It is readily apparent that [Petitioner’s] claims are predicated upon the existence of facts which are peculiar to them: . . .” (Id. at 676.) Petitioner’s challenge therefore is one in administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

The facts before the stewards are the facts relevant to these proceedings. Those facts are contained in the administrative record. A fact not know to the stewards does not inform on whether the stewards lacked jurisdiction, failed to conduct a fair trial or prejudicially abused their discretion by failing to comply with the law.

Petitioner fails to demonstrate how the decision made in August 2018 (resulting in a settlement in August 2020) is relevant to the stewards’ determination in December 2020 after an administrative hearing. The motion is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 12, 2022                                                                     ________________________________

                                                                                                                   Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                                   Judge of the Superior Court