Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Balboa Capital Corp. v. Wellspring Family Medicine, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Compel Deposition.

Defendants Wellspring Family Medicine P.C. and Kenneth Buczynski’s motion to compel is granted in part.

Plaintiff Balboa Capital Corporation shall produce its person most qualified for deposition on 10/3/22 at 10 am at Kirk & Toberty, 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 820, Irvine CA 92612.  The parties may agree in writing to conduct the deposition at a different date, time, or location or to conduct the deposition remotely.

The PMQ shall be knowledgeable on all topics specified in the deposition notice (Kirk decl., Ex. D), but with regard to Categories #1-2 the deponent needs to be qualified to testify only for the period of 1/1/15 to present. 

Plaintiff’s otherwise failed to substantiate its objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010 [broad scope of discovery]; Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 60, 98 [“Any doubts regarding relevance are generally resolved in favor of allowing the discovery”]; Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541, 549 [burden]; see also Buczynski decl. ¶¶ 1-3 [good cause].)

The court finds that defendants adequately met and conferred.  (Kirk decl., ¶¶ 2-6.)

Both parties’ sanctions requests are denied.  (Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437 [court’s discretion to deny sanctions upon mixed results].)

Motion for Leave

Defendants Wellspring Family Medicine, P.C. and Kenneth Buczynski’s motion for leave is granted.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.50 [authorizing motion; liberal construction]; Silver Organizations Ltd. v. Morton Frank (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 94, 99 [leave “must” be granted absent bad faith].)   

Defendants shall have leave to separately e-file the proposed cross-complaint (Kirk decl., Ex. H) within 5 days, which shall be deemed served upon filing.

Separate e-filing is critical to ensure the pleading is properly indexed in the court’s electronic filing system.

Plaintiff contends defendants unduly delayed in seeking leave, but fail to show defendants acted in bad faith.  (See Silver Organizations, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 99.) 

Plaintiff’s remaining challenges to the cross-complaint are better addressed later.  (See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) 

Defendants shall give notice of all rulings.