Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV42029, Date: 2023-11-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42029    Hearing Date: November 7, 2023    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

Plaintiff Bridget Shannon (Plaintiff) moves to quash a deposition subpoena served by Defendant Chaiyos Chuenkasamekul (Defendant) to Plaintiff’s treating physician Monica L. Plesa, M.D. Plaintiff objects to the scope of the subpoena and argues it infringes on her right to privacy.

LEGAL STANDARD

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.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides that “the court may in its discretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing [a motion to quash], including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 1987.2(a).)

DISCUSSION

On September 12, 2023 Defendant issued a deposition subpoena to Plaintiff’s treating physician Monica L. Plesa, M.D. with an October 10, 2023 production date. (Kashani Decl. ¶ 2, Exh. A.) On September 20, 2023 and September 22, 2023, Plaintiff sent emails to Defendant requesting that the subpoena be withdrawn or modified. (Id. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) On October 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

In opposition, Defendant asserts that on September 20, 2023, Defendant received Plaintiff’s objections and on September 21, 2023, instructed “First Legal Records” to refrain from serving the subpoena. (Moore Decl. ¶ 8–9, Exh. D, E.) After Plaintiff filed the instant motion, Defendant emailed stating that the subpoena was withdrawn. (Id. ¶ 11, Exh. F.) Counsel for Defendant contends that he never received any meet and confer correspondence from Plaintiff prior to filing this motion. (Id. ¶ 13–15.) While Plaintiff has not filed a reply, according to Defendant, Plaintiff seeks to be reimbursed for filing this motion. (Id. ¶ 12, Exh. G.) 

Therefore, based on the above, the evidence shows that the subject subpoena has been withdrawn and that Defendant intends to address Plaintiff’s objections. Therefore, the motion to quash is denied as moot.

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions for $5,440.00. Defendant seeks monetary sanctions for $1,560. Here, the evidence shows that Plaintiff emailed counsel for Defendant on September 20 and 22, 2023 objecting to the subpoenas. (Kashani Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. B.) While Defendant’s counsel Kevin Moore was not included in that email, two attorneys of record for Defendant were sent the correspondence. However, Plaintiff does not show any further effort to resolve the issue prior to filing this motion. Had counsel for Plaintiff attempted a reasonable effort to meet and confer, this motion could have been avoided. Accordingly, sanctions are not warranted in favor of Plaintiff.

However, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions for failing to meet and confer is procedurally defective, in that the notice in the opposition does not set forth the authority for monetary sanctions, and the Court therefore declines to award sanctions.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to quash as moot.

Plaintiff to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.