Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV27684, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27684    Hearing Date: May 9, 2023    Dept: 28

Motions to Compel Production of Documents from Non-Party American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc.

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  No opposing papers have been filed.

BACKGROUND

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff Lilian O’Connor (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Matthew Ross Delgado (“Delgado”), Malcolm R. Mazer (“Mazer”), Twentieth Century Fox Television (“TCFT”), Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (“TCFFC”), The Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) and Antonio J. Garcia (“Garcia”) for negligence.

Trial is set for June 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

On March 13, 2023, Defendants TCFFC, Delgado, and Mazer (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Non-Party American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc. (“American Specialty”) to produce documents requested in a deposition subpoena for production of business records served on November 23, 2022. Moving Defendants also request sanctions in the amount of $4,684.20 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480(j).

No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

            A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (CCP § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (CCP § 2020.020.) If a deponent disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena. (CCP §§ 1987.1, 2025.480(b).)

            A nonparty deponent may be subject to contempt or monetary sanctions for disobeying a court order. (CCP § 2025.480(k).) Monetary sanctions are also available against nonparties who “flout the discovery process.” (Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, 476-477.)

            A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail¿or electronic service¿at an address¿or electronic service address¿specified on the deposition record.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.) 

DISCUSSION

Deponent American Specialty was identified as one of the medical facilities from which Plaintiff alleges to have received medical treatment for injuries resulting from the accident. (Hawkinson Decl., ¶ 3.) On November 23, 2022, the Deposition Subpoena was personally served on American Specialty, requesting that American Specialty produce any and all documents and records pertaining to Lilian O’Connor from January 2016 to present, including medical reports and billing records. (Hawkinson Decl., ¶ 5; Beam Decl., Ex. A.) American Specialty was to respond by December 20, 2022.

Defendants state that they contacted American Specialty’s office on no less than fourteen (14) separate occasions between December 28, 2022 and March 8, 2023 requesting responses to the subpoena. (Hawkinson Decl., ¶¶ 6-11; Ex. C, D; Beam Decl., ¶¶ 4, 6, Ex. B.) As of the filing of this Motion, American Specialty has not responded to the Deposition Subpoena, produced any responsive records, or responded to the numerous attempts to make contact. (Hawkinson Decl., ¶ 11; Beam Decl., ¶ 6.)

Defendants argue that there is good cause for the deposition subpoena because Plaintiff identified American Specialty as a medical provider in her verified discovery responses and because the subpoena requests medical records and bills, which are relevant to Plaintiff’s damages.

The Court finds there is good cause for the subpoena document requests. Further, Notice of this Motion and Motion were properly served by personal service on American Specialty. Further, the deposition subpoena was properly accompanied by proof of service of a notice to the consumer. No objection to the deposition subpoena was served.

Thus, the Court grants the motion to compel production of documents from non-party American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc.

Defendants request recovery of their costs and attorney fees spent on the filing of the motion, in addition to $500 in sanctions set forth in the terms of the subpoena. (Hawkinson Decl., ¶ 13.) Although a nonparty may be subject to contempt or monetary sanctions for disobeying a court order or for “flouting” the discovery process, at this time, American Specialty has not violated a court order and, even though they have not responded to attempts to contact, there is no evidence they are “flouting” the discovery process. Thus, the request for sanctions is denied.

CONCLUSION

The motion to compel production of documents from non-party American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc. is GRANTED.

American Specialty Health Plans of California, Inc. is ordered to serve verified responses to the Deposition Subpoena within twenty days of this ruling.

The request for sanctions is DENIED.

            Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Defendants are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.