Case Number: BC716869 Hearing Date: November 15, 2019 Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles

North Central District
Department B

isaias salgado,

Plaintiff,

v.

abbas roodsari, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC716869

Hearing Date: November 15, 2019

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for protective order

BACKGROUND

Allegations

In this action, Plaintiff Isaias Salgado (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Abbas Roodsari, Brigitta Roodsari, and Kreba, LLC are the owners/managers of property located at 4321 Colfax Ave., Studio City, California 91604. Plaintiff alleges that on February 17, 2017, he slipped and fell down a staircase on the premises. He alleges that the stairs were improperly installed and maintained with variations in rise and run, unsafe transitions on the steps, and other defects.

The complaint, filed August 8, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) general negligence.

Motion for Protective Order

On August 16, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for protective order pursuant to CCP §2025.420 to prevent Plaintiff from taking 4 depositions and requests to produce identical categories of Defendants scheduled for August 20 and 29, 2019 on the basis that allowing such depositions and production of documents would amount to unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden on Defendants.

On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion.

On November 7, 2019, Defendants filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

“Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (CCP §2025.420(a).) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Id.)

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (CCP §2025.420(b).)

“The party, deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization that seeks a protective order regarding the production, inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of electronically stored information on the basis that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the information is from a source that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense.” (CCP §2025.420(c).)

“If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just.” (CCP §2025.420(g)

“The court shall impose a monetary sanction … against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, 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.” (CCP §2025.420(h).)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants request judicial notice of the complaint. The request is granted. (Evid. Code, §452(d).)

DISCUSSION

Merits of Motion

Defendants move for a protective order preventing Plaintiff from taking 4 depositions and requesting the production of identical categories of documents. The depositions are directed at: (1) the PMK of Kreba LLC relating to the incident; (2) Abbas Roodsari; (3) the PMK of Kreba LLC regarding policies and procedures; and (4) Brigitta Roodsari, each with identical sets of 33 demands for inspection. (Tabrisky Decl., Exs. E-H [Notices of Taking Depositions].)

Defendants argue that they have good cause for bringing this motion because they have no knowledge of the incident. In their declaration, Mr. Abbas Roodsari and Mrs. Brigatta Roosdari state that they are the only 2 members of Kreba LLC. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶1; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶1.) They state that they owned a 26-unit apartment complex located at the subject premises and then transferred title of the property to Kreba LLC in 2001. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶2; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶2.) They have not been aware of any injuries on the premises during the 48 years the Roodsaris and/or Kreba LLC owned it. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶3; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶3.) They state that since 1971, the stairs have not needed any repairs, were not defective, and have not been modified. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶4; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶4.) They state that they do not maintain any written procedures, practices, or guidelines relating to any repairs or maintenance on the property and that repairs were performed on a needs basis. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶5; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶5.) He also states that he had no knowledge o the incident until being contacted by Plaintiff’s counsel. (A. Roodsari Decl., ¶6; B. Roodsari Decl., ¶6.)

The Court denies Defendants’ motion for protective order for several reasons.

First, any party may obtain discovery by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (CCP §2025.010.) The party deposed may be a natural person, an organization, partnership, association, or governmental agency. (Id.) In addition, CCP §2025.610 provides that while a party may only be deposed once, this does not preclude taking a subsequent deposition of a natural person who was previously examined as a result of that person’s designation to testify on behalf of the organization under section 2025.2130 or the person was examined pursuant to a court order under section 485.230. (CCP §2025.610(b)-(c).) Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to take the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Roodsari as individuals, as well as Kreba LLC’s PMK(s) (whether they are the same or different individuals for varying topics).

Second, although Defendants claim they have no knowledge of the incident or lack any policies or procedures regarding repairs on the property, again, Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of Defendants who are parties to this action to get their testimony. Further, to the extent that Mr. and Mrs. Roodsari as individuals or Kreba LLC have no knowledge of the incident and have no policies or procedures regarding repairs, Plaintiff is still entitled to ask questions regarding the same. The Court notes that though the Roodsaris stated in their declarations that they had no policies or procedures for repairs in place, they still declared that they performed on a needs basis, which suggests that they at least had some kind of routine in place for making repairs. Plaintiff should be able to ask Defendants questions regarding this—such as when inspections of the property occurred, who conducted them, the length of time it took to detect issues on the property and make repairs, etc. Thus, the Court finds that there are questions and issues that may be asked and raised during depositions of Defendants, even if only to verify Defendants’ lack of knowledge.

Third, with regard to the demand for inspection requests, other than arguing that the requests are duplicative in nature and follow other written discovery, Defendants have not shown that producing the documents is unduly burdensome or expensive, or other reasons why the document demands are objectionable. In fact, if the documents requested are identical in character, then it could essentially be treated as a single set of document demands. Thus, the motion will be denied as to the requests for documents.

Of course, at some point fairly early on in the depositions Plaintiffs should be able to verify the lack of knowledge of the deponent with sufficient accuracy to prevent surprise at trial. Moreover, if documents have already been produced, it should be relatively easy to verify that fact in response to supplemental discovery responses. At this point, it is not apparent that Plaintiffs are abusing discovery in attempting to verify Defendants’ lack of knowledge.

Sanctions

In light of the ruling on this motion, Defendants’ request for sanctions in the amount of $7,024.50 is denied.

The Court grants sanctions in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $1,000 (which accounts for a reasonable time of 5 hours at a reasonable rate of $250/hour for this relatively uncomplicated discovery matter).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendants’ motion for protective order is denied. The parties shall meet and confer about mutually agreeable deposition dates for the depositions of Mr. and Mrs. Roodsari and the PMK(s) of Kreba LLC that within 30 days of this order. At the time of the depositions, Defendants shall produce the documents requested in the demands for inspection in the respective notices, unless such documents have already been produced.

Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,000.00 to Plaintiff, by and through counsel, within 30 days of notice of this order.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.