Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton

Vinding (“Vinding Decl.”) Ex. 1.) The PMK Notice identified 25 categories of testimony and 44 categories of documents for production. PWC filed objections on July 12, 2024. (Vinding Decl. Ex. 2.)

On July 3, 2024, Cross-Complainants served a Notice of Deposition of Ellen Riley (the “Riley Notice”). (Vinding Decl. Ex. 3.) PWC filed objections on July 12, 2024. (Vinding Decl. Ex. 4.)

For purposes of this motion, the PMK Notice and the Riley Notice will be referred to collectively as the “Deposition Notices” to be consistent with how PWC refers to the notices in the moving papers.

After meeting and conferring, the parties were unable to agree regarding the scope of the April 24, 2024, Order. Accordingly, PWC seeks an order quashing any future Deposition Notices until an order is issued clarifying (1) the topics on which Riley/PMK can be examined as defined by the Court’s April 24, 2024, Order, and (2) what documents requested exceed the scope of this Court’s April 24, 2024, Order.

Legal Standard

Generally, 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(b).) A nonexclusive list of enumerated remedies available to a court when a party seeks a protective order includes prohibiting the deposition entirely, changing the place, limiting the scope of questioning permitted at the deposition, and limiting the form of discovery. (Nativi v.

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316.) The party asserting the privilege has the burden to establish “good cause” for the requested protection, e.g. burden, expense, or intrusiveness clearly outweighs the likelihood the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Merson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (Grayson) (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.) A motion for a protective order should only be granted if the Court “determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ.

Proc. §§ 2017.020(a), 2019.030(a).)

Discussion

PWC asserts there is good cause to quash any future Deposition Notices and issue a protective order limiting discovery because Cross-Complainants have refused to limit

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition in Department 54

the topics of examination and category of documents requested to the scope of the April 24, 2024, Order. PWC states, “[t]he parties have an honest disagreement about the scope of the April 24, 2024 Order, the limits on topics and areas of examination, and whether the requested documents are outside the scope of such Order.” (Motion at 14:14-16.)

PWC asserts the following discovery and categories of examination exceed the scope of the April 24, 2024, Order:

- Discovery/examination related to general jurisdiction; - Discovery/examination related the Settlement Agreement; - Discovery/examination related to PWC’s understanding of the Madrone Development; - Discovery/examination related to Madrone Attached Homes; - Discovery/examination related to Madrone Attached Homeowners Association (“HOA”); - Discovery/examination related CAMS – the HOA Management Company; - Discovery/examination related to PWC’s business operations from January 2007 to the present; - Discovery/examination related to assets held by PWC; - Discovery/examination related to past, present, and future projects in California; - Discovery/examination related to data breach; - Discovery/examination related to PWC’s search for documents; - Discovery/examination related to assets held by Pacific West Affiliate Companies named in the settlement; - Discovery/examination related to transfer or sale of assets held by Pacific West affiliate companies named in the settlement following the completion of Madrone; - Discovery/examination related to business operation of any Pacific West affiliate companies named in the settlement following the completion of Madrone; - Discovery/examination related to claims against Pacific West Affiliate Companies based on construction defects; - Discovery/examination related to Pac West Companies website; - Discovery/examination related to Pac West Operating Group LLC; - Discovery/examination related to common owners/directors; and - Discovery/examination related to shared business address.

Cross-Complainants raise various arguments in opposition, but first oppose on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition in Department 54

ground that PWC’s notice of motion is procedurally defective because it does not cite any statutory basis for the requested relief. Instead, the only “ground” noticed is the parties’ competing interpretations of this Court’s April 24, 2024, Order. The Court declines to deny the motion based purely upon the identified notice defect, but does agree that the “grounds” raised in support of this motion do not justify the relief sought. In order to issue a protective order, PWC was required to demonstrate “good cause,” which means showing the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of the discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

PWC falls far short of meeting this standard and does not present any facts or argument regarding how the discovery sought is too burdensome, expensive, or intrusive. Instead, PWC asks the Court to specifically delineate for the parties what is and is not appropriate for the limited jurisdictional discovery. Despite the parties’ disagreement regarding the scope of the Court’s April 24, 2024, Order, a protective order is not the appropriate procedural mechanism to seek the relief sought by PWC. The parties are free to continue with the limited discovery as clearly ordered by the Court and if, during the discovery, PWC believes objectionable questions or categories of documents are being sought, they may properly object, the parties may meet and confer, and only if necessary, a motion to compel may be sought.

The Court, however, will not preemptively declare for the parties what may or may not be objectionable. PWC’s motion for protective order is DENIED.

PWC failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f)(4), which provides, “Unless they are submitted by a self-represented party, electronic exhibits must include electronic bookmarks with links to the first page of each exhibit and with bookmark titles that identify the exhibit number or letter and briefly describe the exhibit.” The Declaration of Michael E. Vinding does not include any electronic bookmarks with links. Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in papers not being considered, matters being continued so that papers may be submitted in the proper format, and/or the imposition of sanctions.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00311585-CU-BC-GDS: Madrone Homeowners Association vs. Stephanie Stapleton 10/09/2024 Hearing on Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Deposition in Department 54

time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.