Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV09519, Date: 2024-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09519    Hearing Date: February 14, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants Raymond Bell and Dorothy Bell’s Motion to Enforce Deposition Subpoenas Against Shegun Olora and Pure-R-Space, Inc.

Defendants Raymond Bell and Dorothy Bell move to enforce subpoenas for the depositions of non-party witnesses Shegun Olora and Pure-R-Space, Inc.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) provides, “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of” records, the court “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.” 

Defendants’ deposition subpoenas to Shegun Olora and Pure-R-Space, Inc. are defective because they did not specify a place for the deponents to appear.  “The process by which the attendance of a witness is required is the subpoena.  It is a writ or order directed to a person and requiring the person’s attendance at a particular time and place to testify as a witness.”  (CCP § 1985(a); see also § 1987(a) [deponent may demand fees “for travel to and from the place designated” and service must allow time for “travel to the place of attendance”]; § 2020.310 [non-party’s deposition “subpoena shall specify the time when and the place where the deponent is commanded to attend the deposition”].) 

            The initial deposition subpoena (Traver Decl., Ex. A) and both amended deposition subpoenas (id., Exs. B & C) state: “YOU ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR IN PERSON TO TESTIFY AS A WITNESS IN THIS ACTION AT THE FOLLOWING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: [Date and Time] Address: McClaugherty & Associates VIA ZOOM.”  Someone cannot “appear in person to testify” via Zoom.  Zoom is not a “place.”  Zoom is a means of communication.  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1010 permits taking or participating in a deposition by videoconference—but does not dispense with the requirements for deposition subpoenas of non-party witnesses. 

Both certificates of non-appearance also illustrate the problem.  They state, “That pursuant to the Notice in the above-entitled cause, I appeared, via Zoom technology, at the time and place indicated” and state that the attorneys appeared “at the above time and place.”  (Traver Decl., Ex. D.)  Nothing in the certificates identifies any “place.” 

The second page of each amended notice of deposition, which follows each subpoena in exhibits B and C, does state an address: “2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 300, Tustin, CA 92780.”  But even if giving the address in the notice of taking deposition—instead of the subpoena—could cure a defective subpoena, the attached proofs of service show only that the amended notices of taking deposition were electronically served on plaintiffs’ counsel.  There is no proof of personal service on the deponents. 

Disposition

Defendants Raymond Bell and Dorothy Bell’s motion to enforce deposition subpoenas is denied.