Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV13408, Date: 2024-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV13408    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff DB Maple Avenue, LLC     

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants 450 Maple Condominiums Owners Association, LB Property Management, Inc., Pamela Maxwell, Susan Yeung, and Victoria Lerman

Motion for Order Compelling Deposition Answers from Pamela Maxwell

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.[1]

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff DB Maple Avenue, LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order                      (1) compelling defendant Pamela Maxwell (“Defendant”) to answer, at a deposition to be taken by Plaintiff’s counsel, three questions: (i) “What did the note [passed to Defendant by her counsel] say?[,]” (ii) “Are you being coached for this deposition?[,]” and (iii) “Are you being told what to say at this deposition?[,]” and (2) awarding sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $8,674.86.

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)  “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (b).)  “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

The court finds that Plaintiff did not submit a meet and confer declaration that satisfies section 2016.040.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.480, subd. (b), 2016.040.)

Plaintiff contends that its counsel met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel prior to the filing of this motion (1) by asking Defendant’s counsel, during the deposition, whether counsel intended to continue passing notes to Defendant, and (2) by sending two letters dated December 18, 2023, and December 19, 2023.  (Mot., p. 13:1-15; Kashfian Decl., ¶¶ 19-22; Kashfian Decl., Ex. 16, Maxwell Dep., pp. 25:8-13, 26:6-19, 19:2-28:16; Kashfian Decl., Exs. 17, 19.)

First, the court finds that the conversation and statements made between counsel during Maxwell’s deposition do not constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)

Second, the court finds that the December 18, 2023 letter does not constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  Although the December 18, 2023 letter detailed the incident that occurred during Defendant’s deposition (i.e., that Defendant’s counsel passed her a note and she, upon instruction from counsel, did not answer questions related to its contents), Plaintiff’s counsel did not attempt to informally address the issue outside of court or the deposition.  (Kashfian Decl., Ex. 17, Dec. 18, 2023 Letter, p. 2.)  Instead, the letter stated that, while counsel would have “prefer[red] to find an informal resolution[,]” counsel felt that, “under the circumstances[,]” counsel was “left with no choice but to seek court intervention.”  (Ibid.)  The letter further advised Defendant of Plaintiff’s intention that the letter would serve as notice that Plaintiff intended to file a motion to compel the deposition of Defendant.  (Id. at p. 3.)  It did not request that Defendant again be produced for deposition voluntarily or suggest other appropriate remedies outside of motion practice.  Thus, the court finds that this letter does not set forth a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues regarding the questioning of Defendant as to the three questions that are the subject of this motion, and instead merely informed Defendant of the motions (including the pending motion to compel Defendant’s answers) that Plaintiff intended to file.

Third, the court finds that the December 19, 2023 letter does not constitute a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2016.040.)  As with the December 18, 2023 letter, the December 19, 2023 letter recounted the issue regarding Defendant’s questioning and informed Defendant of Plaintiff’s intention to file a motion to compel answers at deposition.  (Kashfian Decl., Ex. 19, Dec. 19, 2023 Letter, pp. 2, 4, 5.)  This letter also did not request that Defendant again be produced for deposition voluntarily or suggest other appropriate remedies outside of motion practice.  Thus, the court finds that this letter does not show that Plaintiff made a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues regarding the questioning of Defendant as to the three questions that are the subject of this motion.

For the reasons set forth above, the court finds that Plaintiff has not supported the pending motion with a meet and confer declaration that satisfies section 2016.040 and therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.480, subd. (b), 2016.040.)

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff DB Maple Avenue, LLC’s motion for order compelling deposition answers from Pamela Maxwell and request for monetary sanctions. 

            The court orders defendant Pamela Maxwell to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 12, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court