Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 21STCV07586, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07586    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

Plaintiff Marco Sandoval filed this action against Defendants Darrell Devlin and Pearl Martinez (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  To date, Plaintiff has not filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on Defendants, nor have the Defendants appeared. 

At this time, Plaintiff moves for an order granting Plaintiff leave to serve a deposition subpoena for production of business records on non-party Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club (“AAA”), Defendants’ insurer, to ascertain a service address for Defendants.  The motion is unopposed. 

2. Motion for Early Commencement of Depositions

            CCP § 2025.210(b) provides that “[t]he plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. On motion with or without notice, the court, for good cause shown, may grant to a plaintiff leave to serve a deposition notice on an earlier date.” 

            The 20-day deposition hold applies to deposition subpoenas seeking business records from a nonparty.  (California Shellfish Inc. v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 16, 24-25.)  Thus, absent leave of court for good cause, a plaintiff cannot serve a nonparty witness with a deposition subpoena before service of the summons and complaint on a defendant.  (Id. at 25; Pearlson v. Does 1 to 646 (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1005, 1011 [plaintiff, who could not identify any defendants in complaint naming only “Does” failed to show “good cause” to depose persons who allegedly might identify defendants- plaintiff’s request was deemed a “fishing expedition”].)  One situation in which “good cause” may be shown is where a plaintiff does not know the names of the parties responsible for the injury and wants to find this out before the statute of limitations runs.  (See Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries (1994) 7 Cal.4th 926, 930, fn. 2.)

            Here, Plaintiff states that Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendants with the summons and complaint at an address provided by the Department of Motor Vehicles, but Plaintiff was advised Defendants no longer lived at that address or received mail there.  Plaintiff attests numerous efforts were made to locate a valid address for Defendants, but Plaintiff has not been able to determine the correct address.  Plaintiff provides Plaintiff contacted Defendants’ insurer, AAA, requesting it provide Defendants’ last known contact information for purposes of service, but the requests have been ignored.  Plaintiff asserts that the subpoena seeks AAA’s records to locate a valid address for Defendants to serve them with the summons and complaint. 

            Plaintiff has filed proof of service of the motion on AAA, and Plaintiff submits a copy of the proposed subpoena.  (Mot. Exh. 2.)  The subpoena demands “All records for Claim Number 013669056 from March 3, 2019 containing, disclosing or evidencing the current or last known contact information (home address, work address, any valid phone number) for insureds Darrell Devlin and/or Pearl Martinez.”  (Id.)  Plaintiff’s counsel states that numerous efforts have been made to locate an address for Defendants, including searching various databases and records, but Plaintiff’s counsel has not been able to determine a valid address.  (Mot. Younessi Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

The Court finds that there is good cause to permit Plaintiff to serve a subpoena on AAA for the limited purpose of ascertaining an address to serve Defendants.  However, the subpoena as drafted is overbroad.  Thus, it should be modified to request “Records for Claim Number 013669056 from March 3, 2019 to the extent that they contain the current or last known contact information (home address, work address, any valid phone number) for insureds Darrell Devlin and/or Pearl Martinez.”     

            Before AAA provides the records evidencing the current or last known contact information for Defendants, it should also attempt to give 30 days’ notice to Defendants that they are the subject of a subpoena for disclosure in order to give Defendants an opportunity to object or file a motion for a protective order. 

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part.  Plaintiff is ordered to notify AAA, upon serving the subpoena authorized herein, that AAA should give the aforementioned notice to Defendants. 

Moving Party 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 30^th day of January 2023