Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05249, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05249    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Sawhney v. BMGM, Case no. 23SMCV05249

Hearing date May 29, 2025

Non-Party LA Alternate Public Defenders Office’s Motion to Quash Subpoena

Plaintiff Sawhney sues defendants BMGM, LLC, defendants Saad and Santiago for premises liability and assault. Plaintiff alleges he was assaulted by defendant Santiago due to defendants BMGM and Saad’s failure to provide security at the apartment building where plaintiff resided.

Defendant BMGM issued a subpoena to non-party Los Angeles Alternative Public Defenders Office (“LAAPDO”) for “non-privileged” records from Santiago’s criminal case, People v. Josue Santiago, Los Angeles Superior Court case number SA108267. LAAPDO moves to quash. The motion is unopposed.

The subpoena requests all “non-privileged” records, reports and documents, “including, but not limited to: court filings, hearing transcripts, police reports, statements, photographs, videos, crime scene reports, plea agreements, dispositions, sentencing records, documents relating to the factual basis of the criminal charges, copies of any evidence presented in court, 911 calls or dispatch logs, booking information and arrest reports, and any other non-privileged or publicly available records relating to the criminal case and/or underlying incident.” Mtn. 3:11-19. A separate “Attestation Regarding the Requested Use or Disclosure of Protected Health Information Potentially Related to Reproductive Health Care” was included. Mtn. exh.  A. This attestation includes “all medical records, billing records and/or diagnostic materials as identified in the attached subpoena pertaining to Nikhil Sawhney.” Mtn. 3:20-26.

LAAPDO argues it is not the custodian of records for the documents sought. The records were obtained through criminal discovery from the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office who, in turn, obtained them through various sources, including law enforcement agencies. See Cal. Penal Code §1054, et. seq. LAAPDO did not prepare these records and is not their custodian.

Police reports are not defined as business records. See People v. McVey (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 405, 416. Further, LAAPDO is bound to redact information related to the victim or any witness in a police report prior to providing any such report to a third party. Cal. Penal Code §1054.2.

LAAPDO cannot testify to the veracity of any record provided by a third party, nor to any medical records, and is not the proper subject for a subpoena. The motion is unopposed. GRANTED.