Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV46097, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46097    Hearing Date: September 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Karla Cardenas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dylan Lara, Alonzo Lara and Guadalupe Lara (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.   

Defendants assert that Plaintiff is claiming injury to certain body parts as a result of the accident, and that at her deposition, Plaintiff revealed she intended to undergo treatment with Behrooz Broukhim, M.D. for her claimed injuries in this case.  Defendants were subsequently informed that Dr. Broukhim’s custodian of records for medical, radiology, and billing records is non-party New Era General Service, Inc. (“New Era”).  On January 31, 2022, Defendants issued subpoenas to New Era for Plaintiff’s medical, radiology, and billing records from Dr. Broukhim as identified in the subpoenas, but Defendants aver that New Era has failed to comply with the subpoenas and produce the requested records. 

Defendants now move to compel New Era to comply with the subpoenas.  The motion is unopposed.  

The service of a deposition notice, pursuant to CCP § 2025.240, is effective to require any party deponent to attend, testify, and produce materials for inspection at a deposition.  (CCP § 2025.280(a).)  To require the attendance and testimony of a non-party deponent, as well as his or her production of any document or tangible thing for inspection and copying, the party seeking discovery must serve on that deponent a deposition subpoena, pursuant CCP § 2020.010, et seq.  (CCP §§ 2020.010(b), 2025.280(b); See also Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1350 [discovery from nonparties is governed by CCP §§ 2020.010, et seq., and is primarily carried out by way of subpoena].) 

If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.  (CCP § 2025.480(a).)  If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition.  (CCP § 2025.480(i).) 

            In this case, Defendants contend the requested records pertain directly to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, and that the records are relevant to the claims in this matter.  Defendants attest they attempted to meet and confer with New Era regarding production of the records, but Defendants have been unable to obtain the records.  Moreover, Plaintiff did not file a motion to quash the subpoenas, nor did Plaintiff object to it.  Additionally, Defendants have filed proof of service showing New Era was personally served with the moving papers.  New Era has not opposed the motion or sought any other relief from the Court.

            The motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoenas is unopposed and granted.  New Era is ordered to comply with the subpoena within 20 days. 

CCP § 1987.2(b)(1) provides that the court “may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, 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.”  In this case, sanctions are warranted against New Era for its unexplained failure to comply with Defendants’ subpoenas. 

Defendants are awarded three hours for preparing the motion and one hour for appearing at the hearing all at the requested rate of $160.17 per hour, for a total attorney fees award of $640.68.  Further, Defendants are awarded the $61.65 motion filing fee as costs.  Sanctions are sought and imposed against New Era.  New Era is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, in the total amount of $702.33, within twenty days.

Defendants are ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 12^th day of September 2022