JACOB TAUBER VS ASSISTED LIVING AMERICA, V, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******5825 Hearing Date: November 2, 2021 Dept: 51

Background:

On July 14, 2021, Plaintiff Jacob Tauber (“Plaintiff” or “Tauber”) filed his Complaint against Defendant Assisted Living America, V, LLC (“Defendant” or “ALA V”), seeking repayment of a loan he allegedly gave to Defendant. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud and deceit; and (3) declaratory relief.

Defendant ALA V now moves to quash the notices of deposition for David Stapleton and David Kieffer.

Quash Deposition Subpoena

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, ;electronically stored information, ;or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party], or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (CCP ; 1987.1(a).)

Analysis

Defendant brings this motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has demanded untimely and premature depositions which, if taken now, would expose Defendant’s witnesses to unnecessary cumulative and duplicative discovery. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s deposition notice also seeks documents that are not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not specified with reasonable particularity. Defendant argues that the depositions are premature because this matter should be consolidated with related matters for discovery purposes, and all cases should be at issue before depositions go forward. Alternatively, Defendants requests that a protective order be issued barring Plaintiff from taking the depositions until the related matters have been consolidated and barring or limiting the documents requested.

The Court initially notes that Defendant has failed to provide a separate statement. Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. This includes motions to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition. (CRC, Rule 3.1345.) Accordingly, the Court declines to analyze the content of the requests for production associated with the deposition notice.

The Court finds good cause to issue a protective order postponing the depositions until the Court rules on Defendant’s intended motion to consolidate. As Defendant states, multiple matters have been related to the instant case and Defendant intends to seek consolidation of all related matters for discovery purposes once they have all been deemed related in a single department. The taking of the depositions at this time may lead to duplicative discovery that may be obtained with less burden and expense if the matters are consolidated. (See CCP ; 2019.030(a)(1).) However, Defendant must relate all matters and file the motion to consolidate within a reasonable amount of time and no later than within 30 days of this Order.

The motion is GRANTED IN PART as discussed above.

Moving Party to give notice.