Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 22STCV13087 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV13087, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV13087 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: May 17, 2023 TRIAL DATE: December 5, 2023

CASE: Albert Santa v. Sky Asset Management Group, et al.

CASE NO.: 22STCV13087

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF WITNESS REZA HAGHSHENAS; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY: (1) (2) Plaintiff Albert Santa

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) (2) Defendant Sky Asset Management, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on April 19, 2022. Plaintiff alleges that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of his religion and retaliated against him for complaining about being assaulted by a co-worker.

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable, as well as witness Reza Haghshenas.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED as to deposition testimony only, and DENIED with respect to the production of documents.

Defendants are ordered to designate a person most qualified to testify to the matters identified in the Amended Notice, and to produce this person for deposition testimony at a time and place of Plaintiff’s choosing within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Reza Haghshenas is GRANTED as modified. Defendants are ordered to produce witness Reza Haghshenas for deposition at a time and place of Plaintiff’s choosing on July 19, 2023 pursuant to the operative notice of deposition. This ruling is conditioned on Plaintiff’s payment of $60 in filing fees within 10 days of the date of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable.

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 Christina Pisikian states that she met and conferred with Defendant’s counsel via several emails between March 31, 2023 and April 13, 2023. (See Exh. C.) The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has satisfied his statutory meet-and-confer obligations.

Deposition Testimony

Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable.

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).)

Here, Plaintiff served the operative Amended Notice of Taking the Deposition of Person Most Knowledgeable on Defendant via email on March 9, 2023. (Pisikian Decl. ¶ 5 Exh. B.) Defendant did not provide any deposition dates, and instead served a series of boilerplate objections to each of the 37 categories of information on which deposition testimony was sought on March 21, 2023. (Declaration of Kristina Unanyan Exh. C.)

In opposition, Defendant makes little effort to justify the numerous objections to each of the categories of testimony beyond a conclusory assertion that they are “vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.” (Opposition p. 3:13.) In fact, the only category addressed with any semblance of particularity is Category No. 30, which seeks testimony concerning “Any and all facts pertaining to Plaintiff’s separation from employment [with Defendant] as a part-time live in property manager, including but not limited to the reasons and justifications for Plaintiff’s separation.” (Pisikian Decl. Exh. B. No. 30.) In support of its objections, Defendant states that it cannot possibly produce a person most knowledgeable to Plaintiff’s reasons and justifications for separation from employment. (Opposition p. 3:16-18.) Defendant mischaracterizes this request, as one of the central allegations in the Complaint is that Defendant is responsible for Plaintiff’s separation from employment by terminating him. (Complaint ¶ 13j.) This category, on its face, seeks testimony concerning why Defendant terminated Plaintiff, and is therefore not vague, ambiguous, or overbroad on the basis proffered by Defendant. Thus, Defendant has not justified any of the objections asserted against the Amended Notice.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling the deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable.

Document Production

Plaintiff’s Amended Notice also demands the production of numerous categories of documents. 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).)

Here, Plaintiff makes no effort to demonstrate that there is good cause for production of these documents, and, indeed, makes no mention of the notice’s demand for production of documents whatsoever. While some categories, such as policies and procedures for handling complaints of religious discrimination or retaliation (Pisikian Decl. Exh. B. No. 3) or documents pertaining to the alleged August 14, 2021 assault (No. 23) are facially relevant to the allegations in the Complaint (see, e.g., Complaint ¶ 13), others are not. For example, it is not at all apparent what relevance Defendant’s net worth or financial condition have at this stage of the litigation, where no order authorizing the discovery of this information has been entered by the Court pursuant to Civil Code section 3295(c). (Pisikian Decl. Exh. B. Nos. 50-51.) Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate good cause for the production of documents sought in the notice of deposition and, thus, is not entitled to the production of any documents at the deposition.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,260 for this motion.

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.

Here, although Plaintiff has successfully moved to compel deposition testimony, Plaintiff’s motion made no effort to address the associated request for production of documents. Further, as addressed below, Plaintiff has improperly combined this motion with a second motion to compel deposition of a separate witness. Considering these procedural errors, the Court finds that imposition of sanctions against Defendant and its counsel would be unjust.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED as to deposition testimony only and DENIED with respect to any production of documents.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Reza Haghshenas

Plaintiff also moves to compel the deposition of Reza Haghshenas.

Two Motions in One

Multiple motions should not be combined into a single filing.¿(See¿Govt. Code,¿§ 70617(a)(4) [setting forth the required filing fee for each motion, application, or any other paper or request requiring a hearing];¿see¿also¿Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, [8:1140.1] at 8F-60 (The Rutter Group 2011)¿[“Motions to compel compliance with separate discovery requests ordinarily should be filed separately.”].)

Here, Plaintiff improperly combined two Motions to Compel Deposition into a single filing. To secure a ruling on the second motion, Plaintiff must pay an additional $60 in filing fees within 10 days of the date of this order. The Court’s ruling on the additional motion is conditioned upon Plaintiff’s payment of these filing fees.

Meet and Confer

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied his statutory meet and confer obligations.

Analysis

Plaintiff also moves to compel the deposition of witness Reza Haghshenas. However, since this motion was filed, the parties agreed to schedule the deposition of this witness for July 19, 2023. (Declaration of Ashkan Ashour ISO Opp. ¶ 6, Exh. B; Declaration of Kristina Unanyan ISO Reply ¶ 4, Exh. D.) As there is no longer a dispute between the parties in this respect, the Court will order that the deposition go forward on the date agreed by the parties.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also requests sanctions against Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $4,260 for this motion.

In the Court’s view, sanctions are unjust where, as here, the deponent has expressed a willingness to sit for a deposition. As the purpose of sanctions is to encourage compliance with a party’s discovery obligations, the Court does not think it appropriate to impose monetary sanctions on a party who has stated an intention to comply as Reza Haghshenas has done here. Further, the Court is not inclined to award sanctions when the party seeking sanctions has violated the rules by filing a single motion to address two separate discovery disputes.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Reza Haghshenas is GRANTED as modified.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

CONCLUSION:

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most Knowledgeable is GRANTED as to deposition testimony only and DENIED with respect to any production of documents.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 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.