Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV29576, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29576    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     March 25, 2024                      TRIAL DATE: April 23, 2024

CASE:                         Airline Geo Sky, LLC v. CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing, Inc., et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV29576

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (SET THREE);

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

MOVING PARTY:               (1)(2) Plaintiff Airline Geo Sky LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No response on eCourt as of 3/20/24; (2) Defendant Benedict Sirimanne

CASE HISTORY:

·         09/12/22: Complaint filed.

·         10/26/22: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This action involves a cancelled transaction to purchase a cargo aircraft, wherein the parties entered into a Cancellation Agreement and Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to repay a $5 million balance. Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) constructive trust; and (3) judicial foreclosure.

Plaintiff moves to compel responses to requests for production propounded to Defendants, and to compel Defendant Sirimanne to sit for a deposition.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on the payment of an additional $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the discovery that is the subject of these motions within 20 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

            Defendant Benedict Sirimanne is ordered to sit for deposition at a time and place of Plaintiff’s choosing within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,050. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.  

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production

            Plaintiff moves to compel responses to requests for production propounded to each Defendant.

Multiple Motions

            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 seeks in one motion to compel responses to three sets of requests for production, one propounded to each Defendant in this action. Combining multiple motions under the guise of one motion with one hearing reservation manipulates the Court Reservation System and unfairly jumps ahead of other litigants. Moreover, combining motions to avoid payment of separate filing fees deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect.

            The Court therefore conditions its ruling on this motion on the payment of an additional $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

When a party to whom an inspection demand is directed fails to respond under Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(b), a party making the demand may move for an order compelling a response to the inspection demand. A party who fails to provide timely responses waives any objection, including one based on privilege or work product. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300(a).) For a motion to compel initial responses, no meet and confer is required. All that must be shown is that a set of requests for production was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response has been served. (Leach v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-06.)

Analysis

            Plaintiff served Requests for Production (Set Three) on Defendants on December 4, 2023 via email. (Declaration of Kevin Hughes ISO Mot. Exh. A.) The parties agreed to extend the deadline to respond to January 19, 2024. (Id. ¶ 3 Exh. B.) As of the date this motion was filed on January 21, no response had been received. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff states in its reply that it has since received written responses promising production with documents attached, but that it is not apparent from the responses whether all documents have been produced, or if further production is forthcoming. On this record, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling responses to these requests.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED.

            Defendants are ordered to produce verified, code-compliant responses and all responsive documents in their possession, custody, or control within 10 days of this order.

Motion to Compel Deposition of Defendant Benedict Sirimanne

            Plaintiff also moves to compel the deposition of Defendant Benedict Sirimanne.

Legal Standard

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 Kevin Hughes attached to the Motion states that he attempted to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel via email on February 20, 2024 regarding rescheduling the deposition, but Defendant’s counsel could not confirm the deponent’s availability. (Declaration of Kevin Hughes ISO Mot. ¶¶ 7-9.) Plaintiff has therefore satisfied its statutory meet-and-confer obligation.

Analysis

            On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff noticed two depositions of Defendant, one for November 15, 2023, and one for January 23, 2024, to secure Defendant Sirimanne’s testimony as an individual and as the person most qualified for the entity Defendants. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 2.) The first deposition was rescheduled for November 27, 2023, and Defendant Sirimanne gave testimony for 4.5 hours before ending the deposition early to attend to business calls. (¶¶ 3-4.) The parties agreed to schedule a third deposition to account for the lost time. These depositions were scheduled for February 20 and 21, 2024. (¶ 5, Exh. C.) On February 16, 2024, Defendant’s counsel stated that Defendant had to cancel the February 21, 2024 deposition but offered March 12 through 14 as alternative dates. (¶ 6.) No explanation was given. (Id.) On February 20, 2024, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel at 9:06 am to inform Plaintiff that Defendant was feeling ill and would be unable to attend the deposition. (Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that at the same time as this email exchange occurred, Defendant was making political posts on social media. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 8 Exh. F.)

            In opposition, Defendant contends that he sat for a further deposition on March 13, 2024. In reply, Plaintiff states that Defendant again terminated the deposition early, claiming an “emergency meeting” after 2.5 hours of testimony.

            The record before the Court demonstrates that Defendant Sirimanne is not serious about complying with his discovery obligations, and the Court will not permit Defendant to profit from this behavior. Benedict Sirimanne is required to sit for a deposition just the same as any other defendant. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling deposition.

Sanctions

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendant Sirimanne.

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.

            Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendant Sirimanne in the amount of $1,050, accounting for the last-minute cancellation fee incurred by Plaintiff. (Hughes Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant contends that he was substantially justified in cancelling because he was genuinely ill, and because he and his counsel were not aware of the cancellation policy. While there may be some truth to the first statement, the latter contention is not credible. The Court finds sanctions should be awarded to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs incurred because of Defendant Sirimanne’s late cancellation of the deposition and his opposition to these discovery motions. 

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production is GRANTED. This ruling is conditioned on the payment of an additional $120 in filing fees within 10 days of this order.

            Defendants are ordered to provide verified, code-compliant responses without objections to the discovery that is the subject of these motions within 20 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.

            Defendant Benedict Sirimanne is ordered to sit for deposition at a time and place of Plaintiff’s choosing within 10 days of this order.

            Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the amount of $1,050. Payment is to be made within 30 days of this order.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 25, 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.