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.