SIEGEL VS BELLO MONTE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

HOA opposes contending they produced a PMK as to majority of the topics, and as to the ones he was not knowledgeable, Plaintiff is free to re-notice those depositions. HOA argues Plaintiffs’ counsel demanded that HOA pay all costs for a second deposition of additional PMKs, which is not its burden to bear. HOA states it is not foreclosing Plaintiffs from taking additional PMK depositions, it just was not going to pay for them. HOA argues sanctions are improper since there

were 23 areas of inquiry and thus numerous depositions of multiple people are necessary to cover the multiple topics.

Plaintiffs reply argues HOA essentially concedes the misconduct complained about in the motion. HOA never represented that it was producing a PMK who could not testify as to all noticed topics. Instead, HOA attempts to shift the burden to Plaintiffs to notice the depositions of the PMKs again. They argue sanctions are appropriate since the motion was necessary.

Motion to Compel Deposition

C.C.P., § 2025.010 allows the deposition of “a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency.” If the notice of deposition or subpoena served on the entity describes the matters on which questions will be asked “with reasonable particularity,” the entity is under a duty to designate and produce the officers, directors, managing agents or employees “most qualified” to testify on its behalf. (C.C.P., § 2025.230.) The person or persons designated by the entity must testify “to the extent of any information known or reasonably available to the deponent [entity].” (Id. [emphasis added].)

C.C.P. § 2025.460(e) states: “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking that answer or production may adjourn the deposition or complete the examination on other matters without waiving the right at a later time to move for an order compelling that answer or production under Section 2025.480.” C.C.P. § 2025.480(a) states: “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

Here, Plaintiffs move to compel HOA’s PMK’s further deposition and to produce documents on the grounds that the PMK was not prepared for the 24 noticed PMK topics and failed to produce or search for responsive documents to the 53 demands for production of documents. Plaintiffs initially served a notice of the PMK deposition in December 2025. After resolving other discovery disputes between the parties, on February 13, 2026, Plaintiffs served a 4th Amended Notice of deposition notice identifying 24 topics of examination and 53 document requests for February 24, 2026. HOA served written response/objections indicating a PMK would appear, and responding to the document requests. On February 24, 2026, HOA produced Michael Schuknecht as its PMK. Mr. Schuknecht testified he is employed as Vice President of personalized property management for Warfield Enterprises (HOA property manager).

Plaintiffs argue Schuknecht repeatedly admitted his lack of knowledge regarding topics, did not produce documents and performed no searches to obtain the requested information. Plaintiff argues that HOA failed its statutory duty to produce a properly prepared PMK. With respect to the PMK produced, it is undisputed that Schuknecht was unprepared to testify regarding the 23 topics in the notice. (Oppo., 2:8-10 [“Plaintiffs knew or should have known that no single person would be able to testify as to all 23 topics or have familiarity with all 53 document requests. It would take a series of depositions of several people to cover them.”] Although HOA satisfied its obligation, in part, it is also HOAs duty to ensure that it has produced the right witness and ensure the PMK has access to the requested information and documents reasonably available. If the subject matter of the questioning is clearly stated, the burden is on the entity, not the examiner, to produce the right witnesses. And if the particular officer or employee designated lacks personal knowledge of all the information sought (which frequently happens), that person must find out from those who do. (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939, 948.) Moreover, when a request for documents is made, the witness or someone in authority “is expected to make an

inquiry of everyone who might be holding responsive documents or everyone who knows where such documents might be held.” (Maldonado v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396.)

HOA seems to argue that a notice of PMK deposition results in only the production of a single PMK. It cites to no authority limiting the deposition to one witness. If HOA actually believed that Plaintiff was not entitled to the information sought or that the notice was improper for having multiple topics, HOA’s remedy was to move to stay or quash the deposition in accordance with C.C.P. § 2025.410(c) or move for a protective order under C.C.P. § 2025.420(a), i.e., that certain matters not be inquired into or that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters. (See e.g., C.C.P., § 2025.420(b)(9),(10); see Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG June 2025) Ch. 8E-3 §§ 8:529-8:531.1).)

Sanctions

The Discovery Act does not specify what sanctions may be imposed against an entity for designating someone lacking knowledge of all matters specified in the notice. However, monetary sanctions no doubt could be imposed (ordering the entity to pay the costs and fees incurred by the deposing party in taking the additional depositions) as failure to respond or making an evasive response is a “misuse of the discovery process.” (Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG June 2025) Ch. 8E-3 § 8:476, citing C.C.P., § 2023.010(d), (f).)

HOA’s undisputed failure to produce a prepared PMK on all noticed topics with documents to produce, is a misuse of discovery. Plaintiffs request that the Court impose monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,810.00 against HOA and/or its counsel of record, Keith L. Shoji & Associates, for the fees and costs incurred in bringing this motion, which consists of 5 hours at $350/hour plus $60 in filing fees. This appears reasonable. Sanctions to be paid by HOA within 30 days of this order becoming final.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME STONEBRIDGE CAPITAL MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE BY CVPS2508329 PARTNERS, LLC VS GARY PINKSTON, 5425 PAU A LAKA, PINKSTON LLC Tentative Ruling: Granted.

No opposition to transfer, only to requested attorney fees sought by moving party, Defendant Gary Pinkston and all entities owned by him; and 5425 Pau A Laka, LLC, a Hawaiian limited liability company.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 395 et seq. Clerk’s Office is ordered to prepare transfer packet to send matter to Marin County, CA. Moving defendants to pay $50 transfer fee to Riverside County Clerk’s Office within 10 days of this order for transfer packet.

No attorney fees or costs awarded. Counsel declaration is silent on fees and costs. Matter is being transferred and court will not retain jurisdiction for additional hearing as suggested by moving defendants.

Moving defendants to provide notice pursuant to CCP 1019.5.