Motion for leave to take the subsequent depositions of David Alvarez and Gary Ernst
June 2, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________
2:00 PM LINE 8 23-CIV-06074 SUNG SIM PARK, ET AL. VS. LYNDA LAKE GARDENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL.
SUNG SIM PARK SEAN P. RILEY LYNDA LAKE GARDENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SUZIE TAGLIERE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITIONS OF DAVID ALVAREZ AND GARY ERNST
TENTATIVE RULING:
The court GRANTS plaintiffs Sung Sim Park and Matthew W. Moskewicz’s motion for leave to take subsequent depositions of David Alvarez and Gary Ernst.
Generally, a party may only depose a deponent once, but the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition upon a showing of good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.610.) In this case, plaintiffs have already deposed Ernst, a Homeowner Association board member, on November 13, 2024, and Alvarez, also a board member and owner of an original lakefront property, on November 7 and 13, 2024.
Plaintiffs seek to depose them again based upon new allegations in the supplemental complaint based actions or inactions that occurred subsequent to the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs filed the complaint on December 20, 2023 and filed the first supplemental complaint on April 29, 2026. The court finds that there is good cause for plaintiffs to depose Alvarez and Ernst again regarding facts that occurred after the filing of the complaint, which are the basis for allegations in the supplemental complaint, and that were not the subject of questions at their first depositions.
For example, plaintiffs cite to actions involving specifically Ernst and the board, which includes both Alvarez and Ernst, that occurred in 2025. (Plaintiff’s MPA at pp. 4-7 [and evidence cited therein].) A search of the declaration of Annie L. Austrian, attorney for defendants, who included the entirety of the depositions as exhibits, demonstrates that the word “2025” does not appear.
Defendants argue the merits and relevance of different facts, but discovery is broad and parties need to be able to obtain facts to support their contentions. The fact that defendants have a different view of the import of the facts and their significance does not mean that plaintiffs do not have a right to develop those facts. For example, the court cannot say, at this juncture, that the board’s denial of an accommodation request in May 2025 is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court is not simply allowing the depositions because of new facts, but because plaintiffs have filed a supplemental complaint alleging claims based on these new facts.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Defendants also state that the information can be developed through other alternative discovery means, but a party is not limited to one type of discovery. If the parties had not stipulated to the
June 2, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ filing of this supplemental complaint, plaintiffs could have filed a separate complaint and would have had the right to depose Ernst and Alvarez in that separate case.
Unless good cause exists (e.g. vacations, graduations, work commitments that cannot be rescheduled), the depositions are to be taken by July 15, 2026. Each deposition is limited to three and one-half hours.
The court appreciates that the parties stipulated to the filing of the supplemental complaint and while they could not agree on this motion, the court appreciates their efforts to try to informally resolve this motion. There may be issues at these depositions that arise on whether the questions exceed the scope of the permissible questions. The court reminds that parties that the Civil Discovery Act is intended to be self-executing with minimal court involvement. To achieve this purpose, parties are required to meet and confer in good faith (Code of Civ.
Proc., § 2016.040, subd. (a).) “[T]he statute requires that there be a serious effort at negotiation and informal resolution. ... [A]rgument is not the same as informal negotiation; that attempting informal resolution means more than the mere attempt by the discovery proponent to persuade the objector of the error of his [or her] ways; and that a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering with opposing counsel. ... Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Clement v.
Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1294 [cleaned up]; accord. Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424.) The court suggests that the parties meet-and-confer prior to the depositions to discuss the depositions’ parameters and work out any anticipated issues.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.