Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV05330, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05330    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Litvinoff v. Gibson, Case no. 23SMCV05330

Hearing date January 29, 2025

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Cedars Sinai Medical Center to Comply with Subpoena

Plaintiff Litvinoff alleges TBI as a result of a motor vehicle accident. On 9/13/24 defendant subpoenaed records from plaintiff’s former employer Cedars Sinai Medical Center. Defendant moves to compel compliance and seeks sanctions totaling $1,620. Cedars opposes and seeks sanctions.

Where a subpoenaed non-party “fails to . . . produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under [the subpoenaed non-party’s] control” that is specified in the relevant subpoena, the subpoenaing party “may move the court for an order compelling that . . . production.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §2025.480(a). Notably, “[d]iscovery procedures are generally less onerous for strangers to the litigation.” Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4th 1282, 1289; Id. at 1290. In responding to a subpoena for business records, the nonparty business must deliver the records within “twenty days of issuance, or fifteen days after the service, of the deposition subpoena, whichever date is earlier.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410.

Cedars offers the declaration of compliance specialist Ponek and counsel Aslam, asserting defendant’s 9/13/24 subpoena sought records for “Vanessa Litvnoff,” not plaintiff's actual name of “Litvinoff.” Decl. Ponek para. 3. Cedars produced an affidavit of no records. Before Cedars responded to defendant’s subpoena for employment records, defendant issued a separate subpoena to Cedars Sinai Medical Group seeking plaintiff’s medical records. Decl. Ponek para. 5.

Plaintiff objected to the medical record subpoena, which Cedars thought applied to its responses as well. Decl. Ponek para. 6. Cedars produced its affidavit and informed defendant of the defective name in the subpoena in early December. Decl. Ponek paras. 7-8. Defendant issued corrected subpoenas on 12/31/24. Decl. Ponek para. 10; exh. 4. Plaintiff objected to the second set of subpoenas 1/2/25. Decl. Aslam exhs. B, C. The court has an informal discovery conference set 1/29/25.

Defendant argues the subpoena was served 9/13/24 and production was due 9/23/24. Defendant argues plaintiff raised no objections to the business records subpoena but the Medical Center failed to produce records. Defendant filed this motion 11/27/24 and received the affidavit of no records 12/18/24. Reply exh. B. Defendant issued the second set of subpoenas 12/31/24.

The motion is moot as to the initial subpoena, which was defective, and has been responded to. No sanctions are imposed. The court will address all further issues in the IDC.