Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV24566, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24566    Hearing Date: August 2, 2024    Dept: 32

 

SEJI YONEZAWA,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

NIKKEI MEMORIAL GROUP, INC., et al.,

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  22STCV24566

  Hearing Date:  August 2, 2024

 

     [TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena

 

 

BACKGROUND

            On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Seji Yonezawa filed this action against Defendants Nikkei Memorial Group, Inc. dba Kubota Mortuary (Kubota) and Evergreen Cemetery (Evergreen), asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint stems from the following facts.

            Plaintiff’s daughter, Kyoko Yonezawa (Kyoko) passed away in April 2019. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8.) Kyoko was married to Alex Sinclair (Sinclair). (Id., ¶ 6.) Defendants contractually agreed to split Kyoko’s ashes evenly, with 50% going to Plaintiff and his wife and 50% going to Sinclair. (Id., ¶¶ 9, 10.) In reality, Defendants gave 80% of Kyoko’s ashes to Plaintiff and 20% to Sinclair. (Id., ¶ 13.) This led Sinclair to file suit against Plaintiff, causing Plaintiff to incur substantial legal expenses. (Id., ¶¶ 14-15.)

            On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel Sinclair’s compliance with a deposition subpoena.

 

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).)  

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff served the subpoena on April 19, 2024, setting the deposition for May 14, 2024. (Wang Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Sinclair did not appear for his deposition on May 14, 2024. (Id., ¶ 3.) Plaintiff has attempted to communicate with Sinclair but has not received a response. (Id., ¶ 4.)

            The evidence shows that Sinclair was properly served with the subpoena but failed to appear. Therefore, an order compelling compliance is warranted. Plaintiff requests that the deposition be ordered for September 4, 2024 at 10am.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED. Alexander Sinclair shall appear for deposition on September 4, 2024 at 10am.