Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV04462, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV04462    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Marisol Godinez and Ariana Godinez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Phuong Vinh Chu and Xuong Vinh Chu (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. 

Defendants assert that nonparty Center for New Direction Pasadena (the “Center”) treated Plaintiff Marisol Godinez (“Marisol”) for injuries relating to the accident.  Defendants propounded a subpoena to obtain Marisol’s medical records, but the Center has refused to comply with the subpoena. 

Defendants now move to compel the Center to comply with the subpoena.  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 aver the requested information is relevant and needed to assess Marisol’s alleged injuries resulting from the accident.  Defendants attempted to meet and confer with the Center but have been unable to obtain the records.  Moreover, Marisol did not file a motion to quash concerning the subpoena, nor did she object to it.  In addition, Defendants have filed proof of service showing the Center was personally served with this motion.  The Center has not opposed the motion or sought any other relief from the court.

            The motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena is granted.  The Center is ordered to comply with the subpoena within 20 days. 

            No sanctions are requested, and none are imposed

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 7^th day of September 2022