Judge Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case 19STCV46597 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 19STCV46597, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46597 Hearing Date: May 5, 2023 Dept: 39

Siddhi, Inc. v. Jewel House, Inc., et al.

Case No. 19STCV46597

Order #1 of 3

Motion for Sanctions

Plaintiff Siddhi, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Jewel House, Inc. and Shahram Moradzadeh (collectively, “Defendants”) on December 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff is a wholesale diamond seller, and Defendants are jewelers who use the diamonds. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) At the request of Defendants, Plaintiff delivered to them consignments of diamonds and other precious stones. (Ibid.) The consignments stated that Plaintiff would transfer the stones to Defendants, and if the stones were not returned to Plaintiff, then a sale was deemed to have been made and Defendants became obligated to pay the agreed-upon sums. (Id., ¶ 10.) Defendants failed to return the merchandise at issue, obligating them to pay $49,266 in damages. (Id., ¶ 12.)

Defendants move for terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, issue or evidentiary sanctions. First, Defendants argue that there was spoilation of evidence. “Spoliation is the destruction or significant alteration of evidence, or the failure to preserve property for another's use as evidence, in pending or future litigation.” (Hernandez v. Garcetti (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 675, 680.) Under California law, a party cannot destroy evidence “in response to a discovery request after litigation has commenced . . . ,” or “in anticipation of a discovery request.” (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s person most qualified, Jignesh Dhamelia, had 357 relevant text messages on his telephone, but Plaintiff’s agent and purported sales person, Kourosh Shakeri, had only 8 relevant text messages on his telephone. Moreover, Shakeri’s telephone did not contain any text messages prior to January 30, 2023. There is insufficient evidence that text messages were deleted intentionally in response to a discovery request. The mere fact of missing text messages is insufficient to establish spoilation. Finally, Shakeri is not a party to this case, and there is no evidence that any of the missing texts were deleted at the behest of Plaintiff.

Second, Defendants argue that Dhamelia made improper corrections to his deposition transcript. The remedy for this issue is not sanctions. Rather, the remedy is for Defendants to take his deposition again concerning those corrections. Defendants failed to do so.

Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to produce documents in response to deposition subpoenas served on party-affiliated witnesses. Defendants noticed the deposition of Shakeri and requested certain documents. Shakeri produced no documents at the first session of his deposition. Shakeri produced certain documents at the second session. When asked about communications with Plaintiff, Shakeri first testified that he brought the documents and then stated that he did not bring the documents because they are private. Defendants identify additional documents not produced by Shakeri during the third session of his deposition. However, Shakeri is not a party to this case, and there is no evidence that Defendants were responsible for his conduct. Defendants’ remedy was to enforce the subpoenas against Shakeri.

Based upon the foregoing, Defendants’ motion is denied. Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #2 of 3

Motion for Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff previously filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. The Court granted the motion on the condition that Plaintiff post an undertaking of $20,000 to cover costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the untimely amendment. (See Court’s Order, dated September 30, 2021.) Plaintiff did so, and the Court authorized Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. On September 30, 2022, the Court authorized the sum of $7,612.50 to be released to Defendants. (See Court’s Order, dated September 20, 2022.) This leaves the sum of $12,387.50.

Now, Defendants seek release of the remaining funds and payment of an additional $28,505.10. The Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants’ motion is granted to the extent they seek release of the remaining funds at the Clerk’s Office, which is $12,387.50. Defendants’ counsel shall lodge a proposed order for the Court’s signature forthwith.

2. Defendants’ motion is otherwise denied without prejudice. The Court will resolve all issues of attorney’s fees at the conclusion of the case if there is no settlement.

3. Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

Order #3 of 3

Trial Setting Conference

The Court sets the following dates:

Final Status Conference: _____________, 2023

Trial: _____________, 2023

The discovery and motions cut-off shall be based on the former trial date (April 3, 2023). The parties shall file a joint witness list, a joint exhibit list, and any deposition designations and counter-designations on or before __________, 2023. Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.