Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 21STCV09496, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09496    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     December 17, 2024                TRIAL DATE: March 4, 2025

CASE:                         Vista Montoya Homeowners Association v. Lidia Miranda, et al.

CASE NO.:                 21STCV09496           

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION NOTICE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Vista Montoya Homeowners Association

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 12/12/24

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract that was filed on March 10, 2021. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the terms of a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions which governed the property in which the Defendants reside by allowing a leaking air conditioning unit to cause significant damage to a common area adjacent to Defendants’ property.

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Miranda’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for production of documents, and for sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Notice is GRANTED. Defendant Miranda is ordered to provide verified, code-complaint responses to the requests for production without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,260 against Defendant Miranda and her counsel, jointly and severally.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant Miranda’s compliance with a deposition notice for production of documents.

Legal Standard

            Plaintiff’s does not set forth in the Notice of Motion the statutes or other authority under which it is seeking the relief requested in this motion. However, the caption of the motion expressly states that this motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(a). Therefore, although Plaintiff’s notice of motion is not strictly compliant with the form of notice specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, Plaintiff’s notice substantially complies with those requirements. The Court therefore will address this motion on the merits as it presents itself in the caption.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, subdivision (a) provides:

If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(a).) Further, where production of documents is sought in connection with the deposition, the motion must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450(b)(1).)

Meet and Confer

A motion to compel a deposition must include a meet and confer declaration stating facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.450(b); 2016.040.) 

The declaration of Karina M. Babikian attached to the motion describes the extensive efforts undertaken by Plaintiff to meet and confer regarding the failure to produce the documents which are the subject of this motion. (Declaration of Karina M. Babikian ISO Mot. ¶ 6; Exh. 2.) Defendant’s counsel only responded once with a bare statement that documents were forthcoming. (Id.)  Plaintiff has therefore satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Analysis

            Plaintiff served Defendant Miranda with a Deposition Notice on August 29, 2024, demanding that Defendant appear for deposition and produce 29 categories of documents. (Babikian Decl. ¶3; Exh. 1.) Although Defendant appeared for deposition on September 13, she failed to produce documents or otherwise respond to the requests for production. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff does not directly explain the relevance of the categories of documents sought so as to demonstrate good cause for their production, but examination of the Deposition Notice reveals that the document requests are facially relevant. Requests Nos. 1 through 6 seek documents and communications related to each of the three causes of action in the Complaint. (Babikian Decl. Exh. 1. Nos. 1-6.) Likewise, Requests 7 through 10 seek similar documents related to Defendant’s Answer or to the action as a whole. (Id. Nos. 7-10.) Requests Nos. 11 through 26 seek photographs, documents, or communications pertaining to Defendant’s balcony, the air conditioning unit on that balcony, and the turf which was allegedly installed on that balcony, all of which go directly to the factual contentions set forth in the Complaint. (Babikian Decl. Exh. 1. Nos. 11-26; Complaint ¶¶ 11-25.) Finally, Requests Nos. 27, 28, and 29 seek the Association’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, the Association’s governing documents, and any documents evidencing Defendant’s ownership of the unit, respectively. (Babikian Decl. Exh. 1. Nos. 27-29.) These materials are also facially relevant to this action.

As Plaintiff’s document requests demonstrate good cause on their face, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Defendant to produce these materials.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests an award of sanctions in the amount of $2,860 against Defendant and her counsel, jointly and severally.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450(g)(1) requires the Court to impose sanctions against any party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel deposition, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. The Court may award sanctions to a party who moves to compel discovery even though no opposition is filed. (Cal Rules of Court Rule 3.1348(a).)

Here, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $2,860, based on a total of 3 hours actually incurred at $400 per hour, plus four hours anticipated at the same rate, plus $60 in filing fees. (Babikian Decl. ¶ 8.) The Court declines to award attorney’s fees that have not been actually incurred and will therefore award reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,260, reflecting 3 hours actually incurred at $400 per hour plus $60 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Notice is GRANTED. Defendant Miranda is ordered to provide verified, code-complaint responses to the requests for production without objections within 30 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,260 against Defendant Miranda and her counsel, jointly and severally, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  December 17, 2024                            ___________________________________

                                                                                    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.