Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 23STCV20836, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

On August 30, 2023, Plaintiff Yellow Owl Properties Managements, Inc. filed this quiet title action against Cristian Arturo Llamas.

On March 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order for the depositions of Plaintiff’s principals (Jessica Llamas and Claudia Llamas) and the production of documents at the depositions.

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.)

Plaintiff seeks a protective order instructing that several matters not be inquired into at deposition or in written discovery: (1) Arturo Llamas’s assets; (2) Arturo Llamas’s Mexican will; (3) White Egg ownership; and (4) horse ownership.

At the depositions, Defendant’s counsel asked the deponents about “any property deeds under the name of Arturo Llamas,” “any documents that relate in any way to Arturo Llamas’ corporate ownership or limited liability company ownership,” and ownership of White Egg. (See Motion, Ex. L.) Counsel also asked, “How is Tizok doing?” and assrted that it was Cris’s horse. (Motion, Ex. L at p. 73.) Claudia Llamas denied that it was her brother’s horse, and counsel asked if her father would have or did give Cris a horse.

The Complaint alleges that there is a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer ownership of the property from Plaintiff to Defendant, but the signature of Arturo Llamas (President of Plaintiff) was forged. (Complaint ¶¶ 25-27.) As Plaintiff states (Motion at p. 3), Arturo Llamas’s assets and full corporate records from other entities are irrelevant to the validity of the quitclaim deed. Arturo Llamas’s Mexican will and any ownership of a horse are also facially irrelevant.

Defendant argues that all of Arturo Llamas’s signatures are discoverable, “especially including the Plaintiff’s corporate documents (bylaws, minutes, etc.),” and the documents could help explain the transaction at issue. (Opposition at p. 3.) Defendant also asserts that the “premise behind this lawsuit [is] that the father did not want Defendant to inherit anything,” so Jessica’s and Claudia’s testimony and credibility is called into question with the Mexican will. Defendant contends that White Egg “is similarly situated to Yellow Owl and could lead to evidence that the people behind this lawsuit do not have authority to act for the Plaintiff,” and this topic “will go to the credibility of the deponent and further any signatures of Arturo Llamas.” Finally, Defendant states that “Claudia Llamas is the one who said that horse does not belong to Chris Llamas so she should be required to explain the basis for her statement,” and “[t]he basis for her contention is related to this case because she also filed this lawsuit without authority claiming that Chris Llamas also does not own the property in question.”

None of Defendant’s rebuttal arguments are convincing. The deponents’ authority to act for Plaintiff is not at issue here. The Court does not see how the deponents’ credibility with respect to the Mexican will and horse is relevant.

With respect to Arturo Llamas’s signature, which is at issue for the validity of the quitclaim deed, that is covered by Topic No. 13: “All originals of Arturo Llamas’s signatures from January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2019.” And with respect to explaining the transaction at issue, Topic No. 1 asks for documents and records of Plaintiff. Topic Nos. 3-4, 8-11 ask for all communications between the deponents and various individuals, including communications with Arturo Llamas. The relevant goals of Defendant’s inquiries can be achieved through these other categories.

The motion for protective order is GRANTED. Defendant may not propound discovery regarding (1) Arturo Llamas’s assets; (2) Arturo Llamas’s Mexican will; (3) White Egg ownership; and (4) horse ownership. This protective order may be modified in the future upon a showing of good cause via noticed motion.

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