Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 22STCV15653, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Skye Anesthesia deposed Raymond Ghermezian, the principal of Defendant Raymond Ghermezian APLC.

On December 29, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for protective order. Defendant seeks an order that Plaintiff retain and pay for a discovery referee at any future depositions.

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further answers and production of documents. Plaintiff seeks an order for the further deposition of Raymond Ghermezian and for a response to the Request for Production of Documents that accompanied the deposition notice.

Upon a showing of good cause, the Court may issue a protective order to protect a party or deponent from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The protective order may include directions that the deposition not be taken, be taken at a different time or place, be taken on certain specified terms and conditions, be taken by written instead of oral examination, or that the scope be limited to certain matters. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.” (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

According to Defendant, “Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct at the deposition was reprehensible, at best. As he grew unsatisfied with the fact that the deponent honestly could not recall information about events that took place years ago, Plaintiff’s counsel began to make slanderous, inappropriate and harassing comments against Defendant throughout the deposition.” (Def. Motion at p. 4.)

The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct was highly inappropriate and, at a minimum, unethical. For example, in response to a privacy objection, Plaintiff’s counsel responded, “You don’t have a right to privacy and business practices when you steal—from a medical provider. You have a right to go to jail.” When Defendant asked to be treated with respect, Plaintiff’s counsel responded, “I’ve been treating you with respect—with all the respect that you deserve—throughout this whole deposition.” In response to another request for professional conduct, Plaintiff’s conduct responded, “I’ve been acting professionally this whole time. You’ve come here and not produced any documents, you’ve refused to answer questions, you haven’t paid a single lien that is subject to this case, and you’re asking me to treat you with more respect? I’ve given you all the respect you deserve in a situation like this.”

At this time, the request for a discovery referee is denied. However, Plaintiff’s counsel is admonished to immediately refrain from threatening or otherwise unethical behavior in this action. If this continues, the Court may impose additional sanctions and appoint a discovery referee upon a renewed noticed motion.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is granted. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,100.00 to Defendant within 30 days.

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document that is specified in the deposition notice, the party seeking discovery may seek an order compelling that answer or production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant’s production of documents and Defendant’s answers to certain deposition questions.

The deposition notice requested “all documents showing the breakdown of fees, costs, and liens paid from the settlement to and on behalf of” certain identified clients. (Schutzman Decl., Ex. B.) Defendant provided several objections and did not produce the documents. (Schutzman Decl., Ex. C.) At the deposition, Defendant was unable to answer questions about the liens without looking at the documents and refused to answer some questions on privacy grounds. (See Motion at pp. 5-8.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that the documents are not relevant, and he also focuses on his objection of attorney-client privilege. (Opposition at p. 6.) The attorney-client privilege applies to information that is exchanged in confidence between the attorney and client and that includes a legal opinion formed and the advice given by the attorney. (Evid. Code, §§ 952, 954.) Documents showing the breakdown of fees, costs, and liens paid do not meet that definition. Additionally, “[w]hen an attorney assumes the responsibility to disburse funds as agreed by the parties in an action, the attorney owes an obligation to the party who is not the attorney’s client to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement.” (Matter of Respondent F (Cal. Bar Ct., Feb. 4, 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 17, 27.) The requested documents are indeed relevant to prove or disprove payment of the liens. Defendant’s objections are overruled.

The motion is GRANTED. Defendant must produce the documents and witness for further deposition (limited to questions relating to those documents) within 30 days.

The request for sanctions is granted. Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,000.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days.

On March 8, 2023, the Court entered default against Defendant Law Offices of David Azizi.

On March 15, 2023, Defendant filed an answer, and on July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike that answer.

On October 10, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to set aside the default.

In light of the Court vacating Defendant’s default and permitting it to file an answer, the motion to strike is DENIED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court