Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 24STCV17156, Date: 2024-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17156    Hearing Date: November 8, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Plaintiffs LA Forward Institute, Sylvia Aroth, Kathleen L. Coates, and Gary Willimas

RESPONDING PARTIES:    Defendants City of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and its component parts, erroneously named as Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Housing Department, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation

Motion for Leave to Conduct Limited Discovery

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

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

The court sustains defendants City of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and its component parts, erroneously named as Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Housing Department, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s evidentiary objections to the declaration of Katherine J.G. McKeon, filed on November 1, 2024.  (Jack v. Ring LLC (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1186, 1210 [the general rule of motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers].)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs LA Forward Institute, Sylvia Aroth, Kathleen L. Coates, and Gary Williams (“Plaintiffs”) move the court for an order granting them leave to conduct limited discovery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, subdivision (g) by taking the depositions of Meredith Abood and Juliet Oh in order to oppose the special motion to strike that was filed by defendants City of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and its component parts, erroneously named as Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles Housing Department, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (“Defendants”).  

“All discovery proceedings in the action shall be stayed upon the filing of a notice of motion made pursuant to this section.  The stay of discovery shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion.  The court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted notwithstanding this subdivision.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).)  “To establish good cause, the plaintiff must file a noticed motion identifying the specific discovery sought and showing that this discovery is ‘ “needed . . . to establish a prima facie case” ’ and ‘ “tailored to that end.” ’  [Citation.]”  (Murray v. Tran (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 10, 37 [internal citation omitted].)

The court finds that Plaintiffs have established good cause to take the depositions of Meredith Abood and Juliet Oh because Plaintiffs have presented argument and evidence showing that (1) Plaintiffs seek to question the deponents about “what the City has been doing or, more accurately, not doing, to advance the [Venice Dell Community] Project in these four areas on the causes of delay on the City’s part[,]” which (2) will support Plaintiffs’ prima facie case because, for example, their testimony is relevant (i) to making a prima facie showing that Defendants’ conduct to obstruct and delay the subject project violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and (ii) to making a prima facie showing that Defendants did not administer its programs and activities relating to housing development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing.  (Mot., pp. 12:24-26, 13:7-16, 14:1-6; Gov. Code, §§ 12955.8, subd. (a) [“Proof of an intentional violation of this article includes, but is not limited to, an act or failure to act that is otherwise covered by this part, that demonstrates an intent to discriminate in any manner in violation of this part[,]” which includes if race, color, or source of income is a motivating factor in committing a discriminatory housing practice], 8899.50, subd. (b)(1); Compl., ¶¶ 123, 126 [alleging violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act], 147-149 [alleging that Defendants have taken an action materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing]; Larson Decl., ¶ 15 [explaining that information is not publicly available because “the topics [that] Plaintiffs seek to discover through the two depositions relate to the internal, behind-the-scenes City policies, practices, actions taken, reasons why actions were taken or not taken, and formal and informal orders from leadership . . . .”].) 

The court notes that, in opposition, Defendants assert that this evidence is not necessary or tailored to the issues raised by their special motion to strike because they have challenged, in their motion, the legal sufficiency of the Complaint.  (Opp., p. 10:10-21; The Garment Workers Center v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1162 [noting that if a “defendant contends the plaintiff cannot establish a probability of success on the merits because its complaint is legally deficient, no amount of discovery will cure that defect”] [internal footnote omitted].)  The court acknowledges that Defendants’ special motion to strike argues that the Complaint is legally deficient.  (Def. Special Mot. to Strike, pp. 15:5-16:5 [arguing that Plaintiff does not have standing], 16:6-18:10 [arguing the controversy is not ripe], 18:11-19:2 [arguing privilege], 19:3-20:11 [arguing misjoinder].)  To address those issues, Plaintiffs may not rely on the discovery sought.  However, in order for Plaintiffs to meet their burden on the second prong, Plaintiffs will be required to show both that the Complaint (1) is legally sufficient and states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action, and (2) is supported by facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case.  (Maleti v. Wickers (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 181, 200 [“To meet this burden under the second prong of the statute, ‘the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.”  [Citations.]’”] [emphasis added].)  Thus, Plaintiffs must still present evidence, on the second prong, sufficient to show that they have a likelihood of success on the merits, such that the discovery requested is necessary to oppose Defendants’ special motion to strike.  (Ibid.)

The court therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to conduct limited discovery to take the depositions of Meredith Abood and Juliet Oh, limited to questioning on the “internal, behind-the-scenes City policies, practices, actions taken, reasons why actions were taken or not taken, and formal and informal orders from leadership” as it relates to the Venice Dell Community Project.  (Larson Decl., ¶ 15; Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).)

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiffs LA Forward Institute, Sylvia Aroth, Kathleen L. Coates, and Gary Williams’s motion for leave to conduct limited discovery.

            The court orders that plaintiffs LA Forward Institute, Sylvia Aroth, Kathleen L. Coates, and Gary Williams may take the depositions of Meredith Abood and Juliet Oh regarding internal, behind-the-scenes City policies, practices, actions taken, reasons why actions were taken or not taken, and formal and informal orders from leadership as it relates to the Venice Dell Community Project.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (g).)

            The court orders plaintiffs LA Forward Institute, Sylvia Aroth, Kathleen L. Coates, and Gary Williams to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  November 8, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court