Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV25988, Date: 2024-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25988    Hearing Date: February 7, 2024    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            This action for denial of medical care and wrongful death arises from the death of Celestina Echesirim (Decedent), who died while in custody inside a jail cell at Lynwood Correctional Facility. This action is brought by Decedent’s successor-in-interest and Decedent’s minor children through a guardian ad litem against County of Los Angeles, Deputy De La Rosa, and Deputy Mercedia Booza. The operative First Amended Complaint was filed on November 3, 2022.

            On September 22, 2023, Defendant County of Los Angeles served a records subpoena to ustaffing Support Inc. (Ustaffing), Decedent’s former employer. Ustaffing has refused to produce documents.  

            On December 29, 2023, Defendant County of Los Angeles filed the instant motion to compel Ustaffing’s compliance with the subpoena. No opposition has been filed.

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(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

The subpoena seeks Decedent’s employment records from January 1, 2012 to present. (Estabrook Decl., Ex. 1.) There is good cause for the production because Plaintiffs allege a loss of earning capacity and financial support from Decedent’s death. Defendant is entitled to ascertain the existence and extent of that loss through Decedent’s employment records. (Id., ¶ 18.)

            The record indicates that Defendant attempted to confer with various members of Ustaffing, including Ustaffing’s counsel, throughout October and December 2023, offering multiple extensions. (See Estabrook Decl.) Despite promising more than once to comply with the subpoena, Ustaffing has not produced any documents and has ignored Defendant’s communications. (Ibid.) Therefore, it is clear that a court order is required to obtain compliance with the subpoena.

            Sanctions are also warranted because no substantial justification has been provided. Defense counsel claims a reasonable hourly rate of $275. (Estabrook Decl. ¶ 22.) However, the 11.5 hours claimed (id., ¶¶ 19-21) are exaggerated given the simplicity of the motion and lack of opposition. The reasonable number of hours is 4 hours. Therefore, sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,100.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant County of Los Angeles’ motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED. Ustaffing Support Inc. shall produce documents in compliance with the subpoena within 21 days of this order. The Court sanctions Ustaffing in the amount of $1,100, to be paid within 30 days.