Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 21STCV27684 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV27684, Date: 2023-02-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27684 Hearing Date: February 23, 2023 Dept: 28

Defendant Matthew Ross Delgado, Malcolm R. Mazer and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation’s Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Bennett Williamson, PHO, QME with Deposition Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

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.

On September 15, 2021, TCFFC filed an answer on behalf of itself and TCFT. On October 1, 2021, Mazer filed an answer. On October 1, 2021, Delgado filed an answer.

On January 27, 2023, TCFFC, Delgado and Mazer (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Bennett Williamson, PHO, QME with Subpoena for Records to be heard on February 23, 2023. On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On February 15, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for June 1, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request that the Court order Third-Party Bennett Williamson, PHO, QME (“Deponent”) to comply with the subpoena for records. Moving Defendants also request the Court grant sanctions totaling $3,142.40.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

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

Deponent was identified as one of Plaintiff’s treatment providers following the subject incident. On August 22, 2022, Moving Defendants served a deposition subpoena on Deponent with a production date of September 9, 2022. The subpoena requested any and all records concerning billing records and itemized statements of billing charges for various medical services. Deponent allowed a service to copy Plaintiff’s clinical psych records, but Deponent’s offices redacted portions of pages. Deponent has still not allowed Moving Defendants to copy the unredacted records at issue.

Plaintiff states that Deponent has agreed to produce the tests to another licensed professional; generally, Moving Defendants hire their own retained expert, and the testing data is exchanged. Plaintiff provides the testing providers’ policies, which includes how the testing material should be used in litigation, The provider requests the Court issue a protective order prohibiting parties from making copies, requiring materials be returned to the professional at the conclusion of the proceeding and requiring all materials not be publicly available as part of the record in this case.

The Court finds this to be a proper solution. Deponent is ordered to produce the subject records, unredacted, pursuant to a Court order complying with the suggestions outlined above.

Sanctions are unwarranted at this time. Moving Defendants were warranted in bringing this motion, but both Deponent and Plaintiff were warranted in opposing the subpoena, as originally provided.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Matthew Ross Delgado, Malcolm R. Mazer and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation’s Motion to Compel Compliance of Third-Party Bennett Williamson, PHO, QME with Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED, subject to protective order. The unredacted documents are subject to a protective order that prohibits parties from making copies, requires materials be returned to the professional at the conclusion of the proceeding and requires all materials not be publicly available as part of the record in this case.

Defendant Matthew Ross Delgado, Malcolm R. Mazer and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation’s Request for Sanctions 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.