Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV40384, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40384    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff Ana Marie Monzon filed this action against Defendants Equitable Plaza, LLC, Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, and Schindler Elevator Corporation. The complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and strict products liability stemming from injuries Plaintiff sustained in a falling elevator in September 2020.

            Plaintiff had also suffered a prior slip and fall in September 2019, which resulted in a lawsuit in San Diego County, Ana Marie Monzon v. G6 Hospitality, LLC (G6 Action). Plaintiff filed the G6 Action in March 2020, seven months prior to the instant lawsuit. Believing there to be overlapping injuries between both cases, Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation issued a subpoena to Venable LLP, requesting documents related to the G6 Action.

            On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash the subpoena to Venable LLP. Defendant filed its opposition on September 7, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or 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 compel a nonparty to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)   

DISCUSSION

I. Timeliness of Motion

            Notice of a motion to quash “shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(g).) Here, Defendant served Plaintiff with notice of the subpoena on June 30, 2023. (Chung Decl., Ex. A, B.) The subpoena specified a production date of July 28, 2023. (Ibid.) Plaintiff did not file this motion until August 15, 2023.

            Defendant argues that this means Plaintiff cannot move to quash the subpoena. However, “[t]he failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(g).) Therefore, the untimeliness of the motion is not grounds for denial.

II. Relevance

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) The same standard applies to information sought from nonparties. (See Catholic Mutual Relief Society v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 358, 366.)

Records pertaining to injuries Plaintiff suffered just one year prior to the elevator incident are relevant because Defendant is entitled to explore alternative causes of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff herself acknowledged “the common issues of law and fact with respect to [her] injuries and damages” when she moved to consolidate the two cases. (Chung Decl., Ex. D at 2:20-22.) With the exception of attorney-client communications and work product, the information sought is not privileged. Plaintiff placed the requested records at issue by alleging injuries in this case that are similar to the ones alleged in the G6 Action. (Id. at 2:6-19.) The Court finds that Defendant has articulated good cause for the records. (See Opp. 4:3-7.)

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to quash is DENIED.