Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 24STCV10976, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV10976 Hearing Date: October 17, 2024 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Crider vs. GRM Information
Management Services of California, LLC, et. al.,
Case No. 24STCV10976
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena and for Protective Order
GRM
Information Management Services of California, LLC (Defendant) moves for an
order quashing the deposition subpoena served on HCA Healthcare, Inc. by Jay
Crider (Plaintiff) or for a protective order. Defendant also requests sanctions.
Plaintiff withdrew his subpoena after this motion’s filing. Thus, the only remaining
issue is sanctions. The motion is granted in part and the Court awards $11,517.50
in sanctions.
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a
deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (d).)
Additionally, the court may award reasonable expenses, including attorneys’
fees, incurred in making a motion to quash if it finds the motion was opposed
in bad faith or one or more requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Id.,
§ 1987.2, subd. (a).) Sanctions may also be imposed against a party for any
misuse of the discovery process. (Id., § 2030.030, subd. (a).) This
includes using discovery procedures to cause annoyance, oppression, or undue
burden and expense. (Id., § 2023.010, subd. (b), (c).)
On May 1, 2024, Plaintiff commenced
the present action against Defendant. On June 3, Plaintiff served 11 subpoenas
to Defendant’s clients. (Sapien Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant confronted Plaintiff
about these subpoenas after learning about them from its clients; only then did
Plaintiff serve GRM with subpoenas on June 17, 2024. (Id. ¶ 5.) Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff issued subpoenas to three more clients of Defendant, one
of them being HCA Healthcare, Inc. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff recently
withdrew his subpoenas to Defendant’s clients after the Court granted non-party
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP’s motion to quash. (Im Decl. Ex. 8.)
Defendant moves for sanctions
based on Plaintiff’s alleged misuse of the discovery process. Such misuse can
include using discovery procedures to cause annoyance or expense. (Id., § 2023.010, subd. (c).) Here,
Plaintiff served many subpoenas on Defendant’s clients before initiating
discovery with Defendant. This belies a purpose other than fact-finding —
Defendant likely has access to the same or more information than the clients
subpoenaed. If Plaintiff is unable to get the information he needs to prosecute
his case from Defendant, subsequent subpoenas to these parties could be
necessary and fruitful. However, given the timing, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s early subpoenas to Defendant’s clients constitute an abuse of the
discovery process.
Defendant
requests $14,346.50 in sanctions based on 11.3 hours billed by Mr. Sapien with
an hourly rate of $305 and 43.6 hours billed by Mr. Ramli at a rate of $250.
(Sapien Decl. ¶¶ 11–12.) These hourly totals include the time needed to draft a
reply brief. (Id. ¶ 12.) Based on recent events, the Court finds a lower
award more appropriate. Mr. Sapien spent 5.3 hours meeting and conferring with
Plaintiff’s counsel and researching and drafting the present motion and will
spend another hour attending the hearing. (Ibid.) Mr. Ramli spent 38.6
hours researching and drafting the present motion. (Ibid.) Defendant’s
reply brief is superfluous based on Plaintiff’s subpoena’s withdrawal, and
Defendant has rightfully waived sanctions for that briefing. Thus, sanctions
are calculated as $11,571.50 ([38.6 hours x $250] + [6.3 hours x $305] = $11,571.50).