Judge Deirdre Hill, Case 21TRCV00687 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

ALERT

Due to Coronavirus, please consider appearing by phone for Department M cases.

Department M strongly encourages the use of LA CourtConnect* for ALL hearings, without need for prior approval, unless live testimony by a witness is required.

The contact information for LA CourtConnect* is:

https://lacourt.portalscloud.com/VCourt/

*Parties with a fee waiver on file may be eligible to appear at no/reduced cost

Moving Parties: Defendant and cross-complainant Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC

Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoenas to (1) Adams Stirling, (2) Bergeman Group, and (3) Iopono Holdings

The motion is GRANTED. Non-party deponent Adams Stirling is ordered to respond to defendant Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC’s deposition subpoena issued on January 21, 2022 and served on January 24, 2022, within 20 days.

Non-party deponent Bergeman Group is ordered to respond to defendant Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC’s deposition subpoena issued on January 18, 2022 and served on January 24, 2022, within 20 days.

Non-party deponent Iopono Holdings Group LLC is ordered to respond to defendant Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC’s deposition subpoena issued on January 18, 2022 and served on January 24, 2022, within 20 days.

On September 21, 2021, plaintiff Mid-Century Insurance Company filed a subrogation complaint against Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that on January 17, 2020, defendants negligently, carelessly, and unlawfully maintained, secured, controlled, possessed, used, repaired, modified, altered, enhanced, entrusted, oversaw, and supervised the insured property at 13028 Central Avenue, Hawthorne while performing roofing services, when water was discharged from a sprinkler head causing damage to Units 204, 304, and 404, and thereby damaging plaintiff and plaintiff’s insureds in the amount of $511,594.09. On June 8, 2020, defendants negligently maintained, repaired, modified, oversaw, and supervised the insured property at 13131 Park Place, Hawthorne while performing roofing services, when water was discharged from a sprinkler head causing damages to Unit 102, in the amount of $116,099.95.

On February 14, 2022, the case was deemed related to 21STCV36144 (State Farm v. BluSky Restoration Contractors).

On March 30, 2022, pursuant to a stipulation and order, the cases were consolidated.

On May 5, 2022, Blusky Restoration Contractors, LLC filed a cross-complaint against Procorp Construction, Inc., Southwest Home Remodeling, Inc. dba Southwest Roofing, and Dwayne Swallows dba Swallows Roofing for (1) equitable indemnity, (2) equitable apportionment, (3) declaratory relief, and (4) express indemnity.

On January 3, 2023, Blusky filed an amendment to cross-complaint designating Southwest Group USA Inc. as Roe 1.

CCP § 1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 575, 582-83. Either the nonparty witness who has been subpoenaed or any party to the action may challenge the deposition subpoena. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, ¶ 8:597.

“A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.

Defendant and cross-complainant Bluesky Restoration Contractors requests an order compelling nonparties Adams Stirling, Bergeman Group, and Iopono Holdings Group LLC to produce documents pursuant to the depositions subpoenas that were served to each of the deponents.

Defendant states that on January 18, 2022, it issued deposition subpoenas to Bergeman Group and Iopono Holdings Group for production of business records and on January 24, 2022 they were served by personal service, requesting the production of documents on March 1, 2022. They did not make any objections or serve documents.

Defendant further states that on January 21, 2022, it issued a deposition subpoena to Adams Stirling for production of business records and on January 24, 2022 it was served by personal service. Adams Stirling did not make any objections or serve documents.

The court finds that the subpoenas were properly served. The motion was also properly served pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346. Non-party deponents did not comply with the subpoenas.