Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 21STCV11434, Date: 2023-01-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11434    Hearing Date: January 23, 2023    Dept: 68

Smith Martin, et al. vs. State Farm General Insurance Company, Case No. 21STCV11434

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition Testimony and Document Production

BACKGROUND

            This case arises out of a plumbing failure at Plaintiffs’ residence. Plaintiffs hired Plumbers Inc., which inspected and repaired the leak on or about March 20, 2020. (Motion at p. 3.) State Farm issued a Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Items and Things to the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) of Plumbers, Inc, on August 25, 2022. (Motion at p. 3.) After the PMK for Plumbers, Inc., failed to provide an alternative date for the deposition, the PMK failed to appear for the scheduled deposition on September 20, 2022, and failed to produce the documents requested in the subpoena. (Motion at p. 4.) State Farm’s subsequent attempts at informal resolution have failed. (Motion at pp. 4-5.) State Farm then filed this motion on November 17, 2022, for an order compelling the PMK’s attendance at deposition and produce documents. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.220 provides in relevant part that the Court has jurisdiction over a witness served with a subpoena who refuses to appear: “(c) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require all of the following of any deponent who is a resident of California at the time of service:…(3) The deponent’s attendance at a court session to consider any issue arising out of the deponent’s refusal to be sworn, or to answer any question, or to produce specified items, or to permit inspection or photocopying, if the subpoena so specifies, or specified testing and sampling of the items produced.”

            Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480(a) provides in relevant part: “If a deponent fails to answer any question …, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

            Here, State Farm desires to compel the attendance of the PMK of Plumbers, Inc., at deposition because Plumbers, Inc., repaired a leak in the plumbing supply line. This Court has the ability to make an order compelling compliance with the subpoena pursuant to CCP § 1987(a). Additionally, State Farm has properly moved for an order compelling the PMK’s attendance at deposition and has properly served Plumbing, Inc.

            Accordingly, State Farm’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena for deposition testimony and document production is GRANTED.  Plumbers, Inc. shall comply with the Subpoena within 30 days of the date of service of notice of this Order upon it by attending upon such deposition on a date as is either designated by State Farm (with a minimum of 10 days’ notice) or upon such date as may be agreed by the parties.  Any agreement shall be confirmed in writing.