Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV03253, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03253    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 27, 2023                 TRIAL DATE: October 31, 2023

CASE:                         Martel D. Walker et al v. Avalon Hollywood GP, LLC

CASE NO.:                 21STCV03253           

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR DEPOSITION APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO LORRAINE GOLD

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiffs Martel Walker and Lindsay Gold

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendant Avalonbay Communities, Inc., Avalon Hollywood GP, LLC, and Avalon Hollywood, L.P.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action, filed on January 27, 2021, for breach of a rental lease contract, breach of the implied warranty of habitability, fraud, and negligence.

Plaintiffs move to quash a deposition subpoena propounded to non-party Lorraine Gold.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED.

Defendants’ Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

            Plaintiffs move to quash the deposition subpoena propounded to Lorraine Gold until a motion for a protective order can be heard.

Missing Proof of Service

            Plaintiffs have not filed a proof of service demonstrating that this motion was timely served, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). However, as Defendants do not object to the motion on this basis, the Court will overlook the absence of proof of service.

Analysis

            Plaintiffs bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.410(c), authorizing a party to move to quash a deposition subpoena to which they object, and 2025.270(d), authorizing a motion to stay a deposition pending hearing on a motion for a protective order. (Code Civ Proc. §§ 2025.410(c); 2025.270(d).)

            Both statutes require that the moving party file a declaration showing that they attempted to meet and confer in good faith to informally resolve the issues presented in this motion, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. Plaintiffs have submitted a declaration stating that Plaintiffs emailed Defendants’ counsel on November 19, 2022 requesting that the deposition notice be withdrawn. (See Plaintiffs Exh. B.) The declaration then states that Plaintiffs met via videoconference with Defendants counsel on December 27, 2022, pursuant to the Court’s December 19th Minute Order. No additional details are provided.  The declaration of Attorney Laura Williams filed in support of the opposition states under penalty of perjury that Plaintiffs refused all compromises offered by Defendants’ counsel, while declining to offer any of their own. (Declaration of Laura C. Williams ISO Mot. ¶ 16.) While a summary refusal to negotiate does not constitute efforts to “meet and confer in good faith,” it appears to the Court that Plaintiffs made some effort to comply with their statutory obligations and with the orders of this Court but were unwilling to compromise their position.

            Plaintiffs’ moving papers reflect serious procedural defects. Plaintiffs set forth no memorandum of points and authorities justifying the relief sought, instead only providing a declaration from Plaintiff Walker. Further, as Defendants correctly state in opposition, to the extent that Plaintiffs challenge the document requests accompanying the subpoena, Plaintiffs have not provided a separate statement as required by California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a). Given these deficiencies, the Court declines to consider Plaintiffs’ objections to the document requests accompanying the subpoena.

            Even if the Court were to construe the Declaration of Plaintiff Walker as a memorandum of points and authorities on the merits of this motion, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a valid basis for the subpoena to be quashed. Plaintiffs contend that the deposition subpoena should be quashed because the respondent is elderly and “extremely uninformed about the status and the nature of this action.” That is not, by itself, a valid basis to quash a deposition subpoena. To the extent that accommodations should be made to address the deponent’s ability to comply with the subpoena, this does not mean that Defendants’ efforts to seek such a deposition and the documents listed in the subpoena should be completely denied.  

            Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion to quash in its entirety.

//

Sanctions

            Defendants request monetary sanctions and terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs for bringing this motion.

            Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(d) mandates sanctions against a party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes a motion to quash unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of a sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(d); see also Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010 et seq.)

            At the outset, the Court declines to consider a request for terminating sanctions in the context of an opposition to a motion to quash a deposition subpoena. With respect to Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions, Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $3,150, reflecting 10 hours actually billed and four anticipated hours at a rate of $225 per hour. (Williams Decl. ¶ 18.) This is an unreasonably inflated fee request, and the Court is within its authority to deny an unreasonable fee request outright. (See Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.) The Court therefore declines to award monetary sanctions.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED.

Defendants’ Requests for Sanctions are DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 27, 2023                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.