Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: BC703575, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC703575    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED 

Background 

On April 25, 2018, Plaintiffs Keltzey Pierre and Jean Enock filed the instant action against United Contractors; John Griffin; Edgar Manalo; and Does 1-50. The Complaint asserts causes of action for: 

1)               Property Damages;

2)               Negligence – Violation of Section 3307 of the California Building Code; and

3)               Loss of Prospective Economic Advantage. 

On February 07, 2020, Defendant United Contractors filed a Cross-Complaint against Greenleaf Engineering, Inc., et al. for indemnification, equitable indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. 

On November 12, 2020, Greenleaf Engineering (“Greenleaf”) filed a Cross-Complaint against Zoes 1-50 for equitable indemnity, apportionment, and declaratory relief. 

On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Jean Enock filed a Substitution of Attorney form representing himself. Plaintiff Keltzey Pierre filed a Substitution of Attorney form, representing herself, on March 29, 2022. 

On May 16, 2022, Cross-Complainant Greenleaf Engineering filed these two Motions seeking to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiffs Jean Enock Pierre and Keltzey Pierre and Production of Documents. 

A Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motions to Compel Depositions was filed on August 10, 2022. Plaintiffs have not opposed. 

Legal Standard 

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (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, subd. (a).)  

A motion under Section 2025.450, subdivision (a), must set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production of the requested documents in the deposition notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).) Good cause is construed liberally and has been found where documents are necessary for trial preparation. (See Associated Brewers Dist. Co. v. Superior Court 1967) 65 Cal.2d 583, 587.) The motion must also “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and produce documents…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)   

Discussion 

Cross-Complainant Greenleaf asserts that Plaintiffs Jean Enock and Keltzey Pierre, who are now pro per litigants, have failed to attend their depositions scheduled for May 9, 2022, and that both failed to produce documents outlined in the notice of deposition. Moreover, Greenleaf asserts that the Plaintiffs have not communicated with Greenleaf or provided any reason why they could not attend the deposition. 

Greenleaf attaches the declaration of their counsel, Schoneman, asserting, that they tried to meet with Plaintiffs’ former counsel, Leo Fasen to schedule depositions, to no avail. (Schoneman Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3, Ex. D, E.) As Plaintiffs failed to appear at their depositions and have been contacted regarding their failure to appear, a meet and confer declaration is not necessary. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(2).)   

Greenleaf did not know Plaintiffs were no longer being represented by attorney Fasen until April 9, 2022, when Greenleaf checked the Court docket. (Schoneman Decl. ¶ 4). Greenleaf asserts that after communicating with Defendant United, it learned that neither party was served with a copy of Substitution of Attorney that showed Plaintiffs were now pro per litigants. (Schoneman Decl. ¶ 5.) 

On April 13, 2022, Greenleaf attempted to schedule depositions for both Plaintiffs for May 9, 2022. Greenleaf also sought documents related to proof of ownership of the property, documents relating to the substandard housing conditions and illegal building additions, and documents relating to the tenant occupancy in support of the claims of lost rental income. (Schoneman Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. A, B.) 

Greenleaf also sent a letter offering to reschedule the depositions based on their availability and a service list. (Schoneman Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Greenleaf received no response to the letter or the deposition notices. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 12.) 

Given, that Cross-Complainant Greenleaf’s Motions to Compel remain unopposed, the Motions to Compel are GRANTED. 

Conclusion 

1.     Cross-Complainant Greenleaf Engineering’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Plaintiff Jean Enock and to produce the documents demanded is GRANTED. Enock is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 30 days. 

2.     Cross-Complainant Greenleaf Engineering’s Motion to Compel the deposition of Plaintiff Keltzey Pierre and to produce the documents demanded is GRANTED. Pierre is ordered to appear for deposition and produce documents within 30 days. 

Moving Party to Give Notice 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.