Thursday, March 14, 2013

California Reconveyance Company Moves to Quash Deposition Notices for Deborah Brignac & Colleen Irby


TAYLOR v JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA

On 4 Dec.2012, Plaintiff served deposition notices for Deborah Brignac (hereafter “Brignac”) and Colleen Irby (hereafter “Irby”), officers of Defendant California Reconveyance Co. (hereafter “CRC”), along with a deposition notice for another person not involved in this motion, Luis Alvarado (hereafter “Alvarado”).  (Naicker Dec., ¶2, Ex.A).   Plaintiff set the depositions for 10 Jan.2013.  (Ibid.)  Defendants served objections on January 4, 2013, asking P to withdraw the deposition notices.  (Id., ¶4, Ex.B).  Defendants asserted that the depositions would cause unnecessary burden, expense, and intrusion which would outweigh the benefits of the discovery, arguing that certain of Plaintiff’s claims lacked merit, thus rendering the discovery unwarranted.  (Ibid.)  Defendants also objected on the ground that Plaintiffs had “unilaterally” served the deposition notices with a chosen date without first meeting and conferring with Defendants about acceptable dates.  (Ibid.)  Defendants move to quash the deposition notices of Brignac and Irby, or, in the alternative, to issue a protective order. Defendants argue that Brignac and Irby can have no information likely to lead to discovery of admissible evidence because Brignac only signed an assignment (the 1st Assignment) of the deed of trust (Deed) which was rescinded and Irby’s sole alleged role was to sign the subsequent assignment  (2nd Assignment), and Plaintiff’s claims regarding the conduct in which they may have been involved, are invalid.
Plaintiff opposes this motion, arguing that the deponents both possess likely relevant information because they are officers of CRC, they both signed assignments of the Deed involved in this case, so were personally involved in Plaintiff’s transactions at some point, and Plaintiff needs information on the murky transactions amongst the Defendants, about which he is otherwise unable to obtain information.

A party may serve written objections or risk waiving any problems with a deposition notice.  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(a)).  A party may also file a motion for an order staying the deposition and quashing the deposition notice.  Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.410.  A “deposition is stayed pending determination of motion.”  (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.410(c)).

A party may “promptly” seek a protective order before, during, or after a deposition.  (CCP section 2025.420).

On a motion for a protective order, the court, “for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party... from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”   (Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.420).   The burden of proof is on the party seeking the protective order to demonstrate “good cause.”  (Emerson Elec. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110).

Defendants’ arguments appear to be entirely groundless.  Defendant’s argue, essentially, that P’s claims are invalid on the merits so any deposition of these witnesses would be a waste of time and thus the burdens would outweigh the benefits.  That argument is completely invalid since there is no basis for a party to argue that another party has no right to obtain evidence supporting a claim simply because the claim may fail.  The appropriate methods for raising such arguments are demurrer, which has failed, or judgment on the pleadings, or summary judgment or adjudication and Defendants present no authority indicating that this is a valid basis for avoiding deposition.   Defendants also argue that the deponents will not likely provide relevant information because Plaintiff has been able to allege nothing more than the fact that they signed two assignments of his Deed.  This is unpersuasive since, as Plaintiff argues, he is not likely to have any information of the inner workings of the Defendant corporations absent discoveryWhat Plaintiff has shown, and Defendants admit, indicates that these two witnesses clearly have at least some personal involvement beyond simply beyond being potentially knowledgeable officers, and thus are to some degree percipient witnesses to some of the events at issue in this action.  Defendants also argue that the notices are improper because Plaintiff served them without first warning Defendants that he was going to notice the depositions or without first obtaining an agreed deposition date.  These arguments are not supported by authority.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash and for a protective order is denied.
Sanctions
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420(d) states that on a motion for a protective order the court “shall” impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make sanctions unjust.

Both parties seek monetary sanctions.  In this case, the motion lacks merit and Plaintiff’s opposition was warranted.  Plaintiff seeks sanctions of $875 for about 2.5 hours spent at $350 an hour; Defendants seek sanctions of $3,460. The court awards sanctions to Plaintiff in the amount of $875.  Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

http://victoryoverchase.blogspot.com/2012/01/jpmorgan-dismissal-overruled-
in.html 

 Case files here:
http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Deborah+Brignac
Complaint: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1-kerley_comlaint.pdf
Defendants Demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) Part 1: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2a-JPMorganChase_demurrer.pdf
Defendants Demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) Part 2: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2b-JPMorganChase_demurrer.pdf
Defendants Demurrer (Motion to Dismiss) Part 3: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2c-JPMorganChase_demurrer.pdf
Plaintiffs Opposition to Demurrer: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/3-Taylor_Opposition_to_Demurrer_11_11_14.pdf
Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Request for Judicial Notice: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/4-Taylor_Oppostion_to_Request_for_Judicial_Notice_by_JPMorgan.pdf
Order on Motion to Dismiss: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/5-Taylor_vs_JPMorgan_Demurrer_Order.pdf

4 comments:

  1. It has been some time since I visited website with such high quality information. Thank you so much for providing such helpful information. This is really informative and I will for sure refer my friends the same. Thanks.moving companies california

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would advise everybody interested in these cases to take notice of CHASE BANKS paranoia when deposing robo-signers. They know damn well about these issues and yet they don't care. They feel it doesn't matter just as long as they don't caught. Everybody in a case with these bastards need to depose everyone they can to expose them. Especially, Brignac and Irby.

    ReplyDelete