PATRICIA NAKAHARA VS COLDWELL BANKER RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: SC128079    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: N

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Areeal Randall’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Deposition of the Person Most Qualified of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (Role of Counsel) (CCP 2025.410) is DENIED.

Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Areeal Randall to give notice. 

REASONING

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) The protective order may provide that a deposition not be taken at all, be taken at a different time or place, or other certain limitations. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)

Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Areeal Randall (“Defendants”) move for a protective order regarding the Notice of Deposition of the Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Request for Documents. Specifically, Plaintiff Patricia Nakahara (“Plaintiff”) sought a deposition on the “role of counsel,” which relates to Defendants’ assertions that various aspects of the underlying real estate transaction and deal documents were allegedly handled by Plaintiff’s own counsel rather than by Defendants.

On March 18, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Statement for Informal Discovery Conference which limited the scope of deposition topics and document categories in response to Defendants’ attorney-client privilege and work product objections addressed at the March 4, 2020, hearing on the motion. The Court has reviewed the Amended Notice of Deposition, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Statement for Informal Discovery Conference, and finds it sufficiently limits the topics of examination such that there are no readily apparent concerns as to violations of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

While Defendants argue no PMQ exists to respond to the topics identified in the deposition notice, the Court is not so convinced, as a corporate representative from Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company may testify about Defendants’ allegations that Plaintiff’s counsel was involved in the underlying transaction and any evidentiary concerns may be addressed by use of objections in the typical manner. Given Defendants’ defense in this action depends, in part, on their contention Plaintiff’s counsel was involved in the underlying real estate transaction, Plaintiff is entitled to depose Defendants to determine the specific nature of this defense. While this information may be determined through use of interrogatories, this is not a basis to prevent a deposition from going forward.

For these reasons, Defendants Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company and Areeal Randall’s Motion for Protective Order Re: Deposition of the Person Most Qualified of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company (Role of Counsel) (CCP 2025.410) is DENIED.