Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2018-00057649-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 30, 2023

12/01/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Discovery Hearing 37-2018-00057649-CU-BC-CTL HARSCH INVESTMENT CORP VS ISERVE RESIDENTIAL LENDING LLC [E-FILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT ISERVE RESIDENTIAL LENDING, LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Defendant iServe Residential Lending, LLC ('Defendant') seeks to compel Plaintiff SCHNITZER INVESTMENT CORP. (fka HARSCH INVESTMENT CORP.) ('Plaintiff') to produce a Person(s) Most Knowledgeable ('PMK') for deposition and to produce documents. Plaintiff takes issue with the scope of the deposition notice because, according to Plaintiff, they relate to more than just Defendant's general denial defense. This Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication such that the main remaining issue before this Court is Defendant's general denial to Plaintiff's complaint because most of Defendant's affirmative defenses have been eliminated.

While the Court understands that Plaintiff is frustrated at the idea Defendant may seek information that ultimately is not admissible at trial, the relevant standard is whether the information is 'not privileged' and whether it 'appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541.) 'Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Plaintiff has not moved for a protective order and Plaintiff fails to demonstrate any privilege applies. At most, Plaintiff challenges the relevance of the deposition categories. Defendant may seek information 'reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence' related to its general denial. 'In the case of a complaint for breach of contract, a general denial denies that there is a contract, that the plaintiff performed or had an excuse for nonperformance, that the defendant did not perform, or that the plaintiff was damaged. A general denial allows the denying party the opportunity to present evidence to refute the allegations in the complaint.' (Walsh v. West Valley Mission Community College Dist. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1545.) After reviewing the categories in dispute, the Court finds the categories appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, except as to category 11. Category 11 solely relates to issues clearly outside Plaintiff's complaint and related to the matters resolved by Plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication. The motion is granted, except as to category 11, without prejudice.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3014020  72