Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV20174, Date: 2024-03-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV20174    Hearing Date: March 14, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On May 28, 2021, Plaintiff Steven Varkony (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants El Dorado Villas, LLC, Murietta Paradise, Inc., E.A. Harrison Properties, Inc., DGC Construction, Inc., Suretec Insurance Company, and Does 1 to 50 alleging habitability issues while Plaintiff was a tenant.  

Defendant Murietta Paradise, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves to quash Plaintiff’s notice to appear at trial and demand for production to Defendant’s person most knowledgeable. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b) states:

“In the case of the production of a party to the record of any civil action or proceeding or of a person for whose immediate benefit an action or proceeding is prosecuted or defended or of anyone who is an officer, director, or managing agent of any such party or person, the service of a subpoena upon any such witness is not required if written notice requesting the witness to attend before a court, or at a trial of an issue therein, with the time and place thereof, is served upon the attorney of that party or person. The notice shall be served at least 10 days before the time required for attendance unless the court prescribes a shorter time. If entitled thereto, the witness, upon demand, shall be paid witness fees and mileage before being required to testify. The giving of the notice shall have the same effect as service of a subpoena on the witness, and the parties shall have those rights and the court may make those orders, including the imposition of sanctions, as in the case of a subpoena for attendance before the court.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) states:  

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.  

DISCUSSION

Here, Plaintiff served the notice to appear on December 11, 2023. (Sakr Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 2.)  The Notice demands Defendant’s “person most qualified” but does not specifically identify a witness. Unlike a deposition subpoena or notice, where the entity has the burden of producing the proper deponent, the trial witness must be specifically identified in the notice. (Compare Code Civ. Proc. § 1987 with Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.230) Because Plaintiff failed to identify a specific witness in the Notice to Appear, the motion to quash is granted. Since the motion is granted, the Court declines to address Defendant’s arguments regarding the admissibility of documents in the demand for production.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant’s motion to quash is granted.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.