Lawzilla Additional Information:
Per the Los Angeles County court records we believe plaintiff is represented by attorney Mark Ellis. The reference in the court’s order to William Lapcevic is apparently attorney William Lapcevic, an associate of the Ellis Law Group of which Mark Ellis is a Partner.

Case Number: BC494420 Hearing Date: April 10, 2014 Dept: 56

Case Name: New Peking Buffet, Inc., et al. v. Chen, et al.
Case No.: BC494420
Matter: Motions to Quash Deposition Subpoenas
Moving Party: Non-Parties Ramiro J. Lluis and Hilda Fernandez
Responding Party: Plaintiff New Peking Buffet

Tentative Ruling: Motions are granted.

Plaintiffs New Peking Buffet Inc., Tony Chen and Kurt Miller filed this action against Defendants Ding He Chen, Jin Bin Chen, Sheng Li Lin, Jin Xing Yang, Kiat Yeung, Xue Hua Zheng and Xiao Xia Ling, alleging conversion and related causes of action.

On 10/9/13 the Court granted a motion by Defendants Sheng Li Lin, Jin Xing Yang, Kiat Yeung, Xue Hua Zheng, and Xiao Xia Ling to withdraw matters that were deemed admitted, and on 1/22/14 the Court granted a motion by Defendants Kiat Yeung and Sheng Li Lin to vacate the Court’s 4/16/13 discovery order. The rulings were based on Defendants’ showing that they never received Plaintiffs’ discovery and there was confusion between them and their prior counsel Ramiro Lluis.

Plaintiff New Peking Buffet noticed the depositions of Lluis and his legal secretary Hilda Fernandez, supported by a subpoena ordering them to testify and produce documents. The subpoenas request 20 categories of documents, related to information acquired to prepare responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery, and communications with each defendant in connection with responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery. Lluis and Fernandez objected to the subpoenas on the ground that they seek information protected by the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges, and they now move to quash the subpoenas pursuant to CCP §1987.1.

Objections –
Lluis and Fernandez object to portions of the declaration of William Lapcevic. Objection 9 is sustained, and all others are overruled.

Motion to Quash –
Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper; they require “extremely good cause—a high standard.” Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562. As the Court of Appeal explained in Carehouse, courts have applied a three-prong test in considering attorney depositions: 1) Does the proponent have other practicable means to obtain the information? 2) Is the information crucial to the preparation of the case? 3) Is the information subject to a privilege? 143 Cal.App.4th at 1563. Plaintiffs’ subpoenas do not meet this test.

The subpoenas call for privileged communications between Lluis and Defendants, as well as work product by Lluis. They require production of information that Lluis acquired to prepare responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery, as well as communications between Lluis and Defendant in connection with the discovery.

Plaintiffs have utterly failed to demonstrate how this information is “crucial” to the preparation of their case; they have in fact failed to show how it is even relevant to their case. Plaintiffs’ opposition is largely devoted to rearguing the Court’s rulings on 10/9/13 and 1/22/14. They claim the depositions are necessary to determine whether Defendants were actually served with Plaintiffs’ discovery, and whether Lluis actually communicated with Defendants and served responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery (Opp. p. 13). Those matters were fully addressed and decided by the Court’s rulings on 10/9/13 and 1/22/14. The Court addressed the prejudice to Plaintiffs by ordering Defendants to pay $12,875 in sanctions – an order in which the Court excluded the requested cost of taking the depositions of Lluis and Fernandez because “they do not appear to be necessary” (see 11/1/13 minute order).

Plaintiffs’ only effort to address the merits of their case is to mention in passing that the depositions are relevant to Defendants’ credibility (Opp. p. 12). Credibility can be explored in other ways, and not through an examination of entirely tangential matters within the attorney-client privilege.

The motions are granted, and the depositions of Lluis and Fernandez are quashed.

Sanctions –
Lluis and Fernandez seek sanctions under CCP §§1987.2(a), 2023.010 and 2023.030. Sanctions are warranted under these provisions, as Plaintiffs have not demonstrated substantial justification for their discovery and they ignored the Court’s earlier warning that the depositions are not necessary. Lluis seeks $2,020 and Fernandez seeks $2,575 in sanctions. The Court will award $3,720 to both Lluis and Fernandez (calculated as 10 hours at $350 per hour plus $120 in filing fees and $100 service costs), payable by Plaintiffs and their counsel of record within 20 days.