Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 23BBCV00660, Date: 2024-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV00660    Hearing Date: April 19, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Aileen Tahmasian (Plaintiff) brings this action against David and Kaela King (Defendants). Plaintiff alleges Defendants negligently operated a motor vehicle and that such negligence resulted in Plaintiff’s injury and loss of personal property.

Defendants now move to compel compliance of a non-party, Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc. (Glendal Imaging), with a deposition subpoena requesting the production of documents. Neither Plaintiff nor Glendale Imaging present any opposition to the motion.  

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

California Code of Civil Procedure (“C.C.P.”) § 1987.1(a) provides: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of... documents... at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion... may make an order... directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare.” C.C.P. § 1987.1 does not contain a meet and confer requirement, nor a requirement that good cause for production of documents be shown.  The Court’s analysis does not end there.

C.C.P. § 2031, which applies to document production requests served on a party, requires the party seeking to compel such production set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand. C.C.P. § 2020, the statute at issue, contains no such specific requirement. Since both sections are part of a single statutory scheme, and since it is unlikely the Legislature intended to place greater burdens on a non-party than on a party to the litigation, the Court reads a similar requirement into the latter section.

In Digital Music News LLC v Superior Court (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 216 at 224, the Court defined “good cause” as a showing that there is “a disputed fact that is of consequence in the action and the discovery sought will tend in reason to prove or disprove that fact or lead to other evidence that will tend to prove or disprove the fact.”  If the moving party has shown good cause for the requests for production, the burden is on the objecting party to justify the objections. (Kirkland v. Sup.Ct (2002) 95 Cal. App.4th 92, 98.) 

II.                 MERITS

The Court has concerns about the service of the deposition subpoena on Glendale Imaging. The Court finds that Defendants have not adequately evidenced proper service of the subpoena pursuant to C.C.P. § 2022.200(b)(2), which provides “If the deponent is an organization, to any officer, director, custodian of records, or to any agent or employee authorized by the organization to accept service of a subpoena.”

Defendants served their subpoena on Glendale Imaging via process server on August 4, 2023. (Exh. B.) The address for service was 13311 Victory Blvd. Van Nuys, CA 91401. (Id.) The process server’s affidavit only states that the person served was “Natalie”. (Id.) There is no physical description of this person or a description of who they are in relation to Glendale Imaging. If Natalie is a person authorized to accept service of a subpoena on Glendale Imaging’s behalf, Defendants have not shown this to be the case. 

The proof of service for notice of this motion also appears to have been served on Natalie. The process server’s affidavit reflects service on a “Natalie T.” in Reception on March 11, 2024. As with the previous proof of service, this affidavit contains no information from which the Court can glean Natalie’s status as an agent for proof of service under C.C.P. § 2020.220(b)(2).

Defendants also submit the declaration of their counsel, El Mahdi Young (Young), regarding service. Young states that he used Ontellus, a copy service, to issue and serve the subpoenas. (Young Decl. ¶ 6.) Young states the subpoenas “were served on the CORs for Glendale Diagnostic August 4, 2024.” (Id.) It is unclear from Young’s declaration whether he is referring to Natalie or someone else. In any case, the Young declaration is devoid of any explanation as to how Young is certain the subpoena was served on the Custodian of Records for Glendale Imaging when the proofs of service contain no such information.

In short, the Court finds service of the deposition subpoena to be lacking. From the information presented it is not clear whether the subpoena was served on the Custodian of Records for Glendale Imaging or anyone else who is authorized to accept service. The Court’s concerns about service are further compounded by the lack of opposition from Glendale Imaging.

Accordingly, the motion to compel compliance is DENIED without prejudice.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

David & Kaela King’s Motion to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena came on regularly for hearing on April 19, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  April 19, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles