Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV21243, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV21243    Hearing Date: August 22, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This is a landlord-tenant dispute arising from alleged habitability issues. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Daniel Bedingfield filed the complaint against Defendant Jeremy Braud, alleging (1) negligence, (2) breach of the implied warranty of habitability, (3) constructive eviction, and (4) failure to refund deposit.

            The instant motions to quash concern two subpoenas Plaintiff served to nonparties (i) Webb & Ord and (ii) Artkraft Build, Inc. Defendant sought legal advice from Webb & Ord regarding his acquisition of the subject property. (Braud Decl. ¶ 5.) The subpoena to Webb & Ord requested case files, mediation briefs, and settlement negotiations relating to claims made by Defendant stemming from his purchase of the property. (Staub Decl., Ex. A.) Artkraft is a now-suspended corporation operated by the same individual who controlled the company that sold Defendant the subject property. (Parker Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) The subpoena to Artkraft requested permits, applications, inspection reports, and complaints for the property from 2018 to present.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires … the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a), (b).) Good cause must be shown to require a non-party to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

DISCUSSION

            Here, the subpoenas plainly request privileged documents that are also irrelevant to the subject matter at issue in this litigation. Defendant’s underlying purchase of the property and associated mediation has no bearing on Plaintiff’s separate claims based on habitability. Plaintiff does not dispute this contention and has since withdrawn the subpoenas. However, no substantial justification is provided for issuing the subpoenas in the first place. Thus, sanctions are warranted. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010 [defining discovery abuse as, inter alia, (i) attempting to obtain material outside the permissible scope of discovery without substantial justification, or (ii) employing discovery in a manner that causes unwarranted annoyance].)

            Plaintiff argues that the motion should be denied because it is untimely. (Opp. 3:14-23.) Citing Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, Plaintiff argues that the deadline to bring the motion was 5 days prior to the production date for the subpoena. (Ibid.) The subpoenas here had production dates of May 12, 2022 and July 5, 2022, while the motions were filed July 5 and 21, 2022. However, Section 1985.3 expressly provides that “[t]he failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum . . . .” (Ibid.)

            Plaintiff next argues that the motion should be denied because Defendant failed to meet and confer. (Opp. 3:26-4:11.) However, Plaintiff cites no authority requiring a meet and confer prior to filing a motion to quash or requesting sanctions. There is no mention of meet and confer in Civil Code section 1987.1, the provision authorizing motions to quash, unlike the provisions regarding motions to compel further responses. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300(b).)

            Defendant does not dispute that he has withdrawn his request for sanctions regarding the Artkraft subpoena. (See Alarcon Decl., Ex. C, p. 2.) However, Defendant maintains his request for sanctions as it pertains to the Webb & Ord subpoena. As discussed above, Plaintiff has provided no substantial justification for issuing the plainly improper subpoena. Defense counsel claims to have spent 9.9 hours at $500 per hour for the motion. (Staub Decl. ¶ 25.) This is unreasonably high given the simplicity of the motion. The reasonable amount is 3 hours at $500 per hour plus a $60 filing fee. This totals to $1,560.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motions to quash are denied as moot. The Court awards monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $1,560, to be paid within 30 days.