Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV25595, Date: 2022-08-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV25595    Hearing Date: August 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Suchitha Reddy (“Suchitha”) and Rama Reddy filed this action against defendants Victor Khalil and Odette Khalil for damages arising from a dog bite incident.  The complaint alleges Suchitha Reddy was attacked by defendants’ dog while walking in her residential neighborhood. 

Defendant Victor Khalil (“Defendant”) asserts that plaintiff Suchitha’s claimed damages include loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity.  Defendant provides that in response to discovery, Suchitha listed her present employer as being Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”), and that she has worked at SCPMG from September 2013 to the present as an OBGYN physician.  Defendant avers that in order to evaluate Suchitha’s loss of income and loss of earning capacity claims, Defendant issued a deposition subpoena for the production of business records to Kaiser/Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Legal Department (“Kaiser”), which sought Suchitha’s employment and payroll records from December 9, 2019, to the present.  Defendant asserts that Kaiser failed to comply with the subpoena despite Suchitha not objecting to the subpoena. 

Defendant now moves to compel Kaiser to comply with the subpoena and produce the requested records.  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, Defendant asserts the requested information is necessary to evaluate Suchitha’s loss of income and loss of earning capacity claims.  Defendant has attempted to contact Kaiser regarding the subpoena, but Kaiser has not responded to Defendant’s meet and confer effort.  Further, Defendant filed proof of service showing Kaiser was personally served with the instant motion.  There has been no objection filed to the subpoena, nor has a motion to quash been filed. 

            The motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena is granted.  Kaiser/Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Legal Department is ordered to comply with the subpoena within twenty (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, the court finds sanctions warranted against Kaiser for its failure to comply with Defendant’s subpoena.  Defendant is awarded the requested three hours total for preparing the motion and appearing at the hearing all at the reasonable rate of $160.17 per hour, for a total attorney’s fees award of $480.51.  Further, Defendant is awarded the $60 motion filing fee as costs. 

            Sanctions are sought and imposed against Kaiser.  Kaiser is ordered to pay sanctions to Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel of record, in the total amount of $540.51, within twenty days.

Defendant is 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 August 2022