Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 20STCV47757, Date: 2022-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV47757    Hearing Date: October 25, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Tammie Marie Brucato (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Aaron Matthew Goldstein and Diane Goldstein (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiff sought medical care and treatment with Keck Hospital of USC (“USC”) for the accident.  Defendants provide they served a deposition subpoena on USC’s custodian of records for the medical billing records of Plaintiff, but USC did not produce the billing records.  Further, Defendants assert that they subsequently served USC’s custodian of records with a deposition for subpoena for personal appearance and production of Plaintiff’s billing records on July 26, 2022.  (Mot. Exh. C.)  Defendants aver that USC failed to produce the billing records and failed to appear for the deposition, for which Defendants obtained a certificate of non-appearance. 

Defendants now move to compel USC to comply with the deposition subpoena for appearance and production of documents served on its custodian of records on July 26, 2022.  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 assert that Plaintiff treated with USC for injuries relating to the subject accident.  Defendants contend the information sought concerning the billing incurred from their care and treatment of Plaintiff is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.  USC, however, failed to appear for the noticed deposition or produce the requested documents.  The motion to compel compliance with the relevant subpoena is unopposed.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that any objections were filed to the subpoena, nor was a motion to quash filed. 

The motion to compel USC to comply with the July 26, 2022 subpoena is granted.  USC’s custodian of records is ordered to appear for deposition on November 21, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and to produce the records requested in the subpoena at a location to be noticed by Defendant.  Pursuant to CCP § 2025.310, at the election of either the deponent- USC’s custodian of records-, Plaintiff or Defendants, the deposition must be completed remotely.

            Defendants additionally request sanctions of $1,556.30, which includes a $500 forfeiture under CCP § 1992, against USC.  As to the $500 forfeiture, the expenses allowed by CCP § 1992 must be sought in a civil suit separate from the pending action.  (See New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 453, 464.)  Thus, the request for the $500 forfeiture is denied. 

            As to the requests for sanctions, 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.” 

            Defendants are awarded the requested 1 hour for the motion and 1 hours for appearing at the hearing all at the rate of $175 per hour, for a total attorney fees award of $350.  Further, Defendants are awarded the $60 motion filing fee and the certificate of non-appearance fee of $471.30 as costs.  Sanctions are sought and imposed against USC.  USC is ordered to pay sanctions to Defendants, by and through counsel of record, in the total amount of $821.30, within thirty (30) 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 25^th day of October 2022