BEVERLYWOOD HOMES ASSOCIATION INC VS RONIT EDRY ET AL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****8499 Hearing Date: September 1, 2021 Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Ms. Ronit Edry’s motion for a protective order is DENIED.

On 12/27/2017, Plaintiff Beverlywood Homes Association (Beverlywood) filed suit against Ronit and Jack Edry (collectively, the Edrys), alleging: (1) breach of declaration of covenants, conditions, & restrictions (CCRs); (2) permanent injunction; (3) nuisance; and (4) declaratory relief.

On 2/20/2018, the Edrys filed a cross-complaint against Beverlywood. On 7/24/2018, the Edrys filed a first amend cross-complaint (FAXC) against Beverlywood, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of California Fair Housing Act; (2) breach of fiduciary duties; (3) negligence; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 5205, et seq.; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (6) violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (7) declaratory relief.

Now, Ronit Edry (Ms. Edry) moves for a protective order barring her deposition from being videotaped.

Factual Background

This action arises out of alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s CCRs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants constructed a wall, concrete pad, gate, and also installed lighting and landscaping despite restrictions against construction within a Setback Area. (Complaint ¶ 19.)

Discussion

Ms. Edry claims that a videotape of her deposition would be subject to wide dissemination, despite any court order to limit its dissemination, and that this would put her life and the life of those that she protects at risk. Specifically, Ms. Edry claims that she works uncover in coordination with various law enforcement agencies, as head of intelligence for Magivim, a Los Angeles based community safety NGO, and as a licensed Private Investigator.

As stated in Beverly Hills Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Superior Court (1961) 195 Cal.App.2d 861, 864-865: “It is established that a litigant has the right to take a proper deposition, and to receive responsive answers to proper questions (citations omitted) for the purposes of discovery or for use as evidence, or for both purposes.”

CCP section 2025.220, subdivision (a)(5) provides that a party desiring to take the oral deposition of any person may also “…record the testimony by audio or video technology…” The right to videotape a deposition was included in the 1980 amendments to the Discovery Act in order to provide an alternative method for recording depositions. The purpose of this amendment was to permit an additional method of preserving and presenting evidence taken at depositions. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2473 (1979-1980 Reg. Sess.). In particular, a videotape preserves the gestures and demeanor of witnesses which can help provide visual clues to credibility.

Given that the right to videotape a deposition is well-established, it is presumptively proper for a deposition to be video recorded. The court’s power to order that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only “in some other manner than as proposed,” is not unlimited. (Beverly Hills, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d at p. 866.) The court’s power to limit the manner or scope of a deposition is limited to situations wherein good cause has been shown, or where justice requires the exercise of that discretion. (Ibid.)

Accordingly, Ms. Edry has the burden of proof to show good cause as to why her videotaped deposition testimony should be prohibited.

The Court concludes that Ms. Edry has not shown that good cause exists to order that her videotape deposition not be recorded.

First, Ms. Edry has not submitted any declaration from any law enforcement agency that could show that Ms.Edry provides services as an uncover agent or intelligence officer. Moreover, Ms. Edry has not set forth any evidence or facts which could show how a videotaped deposition would compromise any present or future operations by the police.

Second, while Ms. Edry claims to be the head of intelligence for Magivim, Magivim is a community-organization which does not investigate or prosecute crimes. Rather, it promotes community awareness and safety. Ms. Edry has not submitted any evidence which could show that her videotaped deposition would compromise any of the work performed by Magivim.

Third, the fact that Ms. Edry is licensed as a private investigator or private patrol officer does not confer any privileges to delay or avoid her deposition or to dictate the manner in which the deposition is taken.

Fourth, this case concerns a dispute with a homeowners association over the construction of a wall, concrete pad, gate, and the installation of lighting and landscaping on specific portion of the Edry’s property. Ms. Edry has not submitted any evidence which could show that information revealed in her deposition on this subject could put her life, or the life of others, at risk.

Fifth, Beverlywood has offered to stipulate to a protective order preventing the use, dissemination, or publication of the videotaped deposition to third persons, to members of the association, or to internet sources. Ms. Edry has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that this does not provide sufficient protection against misuse of the video.

Based on the foregoing, Ms. Edry’s request for a protective order prohibiting her deposition from being videotaped is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Beverlywood’s motion to compel the deposition of Ms. Edry is GRANTED. Ms. Edry is to appear for a videotaped deposition within 20 days of entry of this order. Ms. Edry is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400.

On 12/27/2017, Plaintiff Beverlywood Homes Association (Beverlywood) filed suit against Ronit (Ms. Edry) and Jack Edry (collectively, the Edrys), alleging: (1) breach of declaration of covenants, conditions, & restrictions (CCRs); (2) permanent injunction; (3) nuisance; and (4) declaratory relief.

On 2/20/2018, the Edrys filed a cross-complaint against Beverlywood. On 7/24/2018, the Edrys filed a first amend cross-complaint (FAXC) against Beverlywood, alleging: (1) discrimination in violation of California Fair Housing Act; (2) breach of fiduciary duties; (3) negligence; (4) violation of California Civil Code section 5205, et seq.; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); (6) violation of California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (7) declaratory relief.

Now, Beverlywood moves to compel the deposition of Ms. Edry.

Factual Background

This action arises out of alleged violations of the Plaintiff’s CCRs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants constructed a wall, concrete pad, gate, and also installed lighting and landscaping despite restrictions against construction within a Setback Area. (Complaint ¶ 19.)

Discussion

Beverlywood argues that it has noticed Ms. Edry’s deposition eight times over the course of 20+ months, and each date was continued to accommodate requests and excuses by Ms. Edry. (Geibel Decl., ¶¶ 6,7, Exh. 5.) Plaintiff served the Seventh Notice on June 8, 2021, and noticed the date of 6/23/2021 for the deposition. Like all of the prior deposition notices, the Notice indicated that the deposition would be videotaped. Despite that Ms. Edry’s counsel had agreed to the 6/23/2021 date in advance, and stated no reservations about the deposition being videotaped, Ms. Edry’s counsel informed Plaintiff on 6/17/2021 that Ms. Edry could not appear because the deposition was being videotaped.

In opposition, Ms. Edry argues that she “did not notice in the various deposition Notices that her deposition would be videotaped” and that there is good cause for her deposition not to be videotaped. (Opp., 2: 19-20.)

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling on Ms. Edry’s motion for a protective order, Ms. Edry has not shown good cause exists for the Court to order that her deposition not be videotaped.

Ms. Edry is ordered to appear for a videotaped deposition within 20 days of entry of this order, and must produce all documents in response to the requests for production of documents set forth in the Seventh Notice. Ms. Edry’s unreasonable delays over 20+ months evinces bad faith, and warrants sanctions. Ms. Edry is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,400 ($350/hr x 4 hours).

It is so ordered.

Dated: September , 2021

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk. The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.