Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV41959, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV41959    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Alla Neyman and Vladimir Chertock’s Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Providence Health and Services with Subpoena for Medical Records

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff James Alpert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Alla Neyman (“Neyman”) and Vladimir Chertock (“Chertock”) for premises liability and negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants James Lewis (“Lewis”), Rick Shelton (“Shelton”), Sam Hauxwell (“Sam”), Samuel Hauxwell (“Samuel”) and SEV Properties, LLC (“SEV”).

On February 2, 2021, Neyman and Chertock filed a general denial. On October 14, 2022, the clerk entered default against Samuel.

On November 4, 2022, Neyman and Chertock (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Providence Health and Services with Subpoena for Medical Records to be heard on January 24, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 9, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request that the Court order Third-Party Providence Health and Services (“Third Party”) to comply with the subpoena for records.

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.) The Court may order a third party to comply with a deposition subpoena upon any terms or condition as the court shall declare. (CCP § 1987.1.)

CRC Rule 3.1346 states “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.”

DISCUSSION

Moving Defendants have not complied with CRC Rule 3.1346 service requirements for this motion. Under the applicable rule, a moving party must serve a motion to compel a third-party subpoena on said Third Party via personal service unless said Third Party has agreed to accept service by mail or electronic service. The proof of service for the motion only lists Plaintiff as the recipient of the motion. There is no indication that Third Party was served, at all, much less by personal service. The Court denies the motion for insufficient service.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Alla Neyman and Vladimir Chertock’s Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Providence Health and Services with Subpoena for Medical Records is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is 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.