Judge: H. Jay Ford, III, Case: 19SMCV01692, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01692    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: O

Case Name:               Enenstein Pham & Glass v. Hankey, et al.

SUBJECT:     (1)  MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA ON NON-PARTY ANTHONY UKRAN, ESQ.

            (2)  MOTION TO QUASH TRIAL SUBPOENA ON NON-PARTY             ROBERT A. LEKSTROM

MOVING PARTY:   Defendant Rufus Hankey

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Enenstein Pham & Glass

  TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant Hankey’s Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena on Non-Party Anthony Ukran, esq. is DENIED.  Defendant Hankey’s Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena on Non-party Robert A. Lekstrom is DENIED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions pursuant to CCP §1987.2 in the amount of $450 per motion is GRANTED. 

            Defendant Hankey fails to establish that the subpoenas are unreasonable or oppressive.  Defendant Hankey argues neither Ukran nor Lekstrom possess relevant personal knowledge as percipient witnesses.  However, Hankey concedes that Ukran was opposing counsel in the martial dissolution action in which Plaintiff represented Hankey.  Ukran therefore possesses personal knowledge as a percipient witness.  Because Defendant Hankey is challenging the necessity and reasonableness of the work performed by Plaintiff, Ukran’s personal knowledge is relevant. 

            Lekstrom’s personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s work on the martial dissolution action is relevant for the same reasons.  Lekstrom was Hankey’s executive assistant when Plaintiff was representing Defendant Hankey.  Lekstrom assisted in collecting documents for Plaintiff and received and reviewed Plaintiff’s emails in connection with Plaintiff’s representation of Hankey. Hankey admits these facts.  Lekstrom therefore has personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s representation of Hankey and the nature of the work performed.  Lekstrom’s personal knowledge is relevant.

            Finally, the motions are technically moot. Plaintiff’s counsel informed both Ukran and Lekstrom that he would contact them “at that time if necessary.”  See Opposition to MTQ Lekstrom Subpoena, Dec. of C. Mueller, Ex. F; Opposition to MTQ Ukran Subpoena, Dec. of C. Mueller, Ex. I. 

            Defendant Hankey’s refusal to withdraw the motions to quash was made without substantial justification.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under CCP §1987.2 in the amount of $450/motion (1 hour of attorney work) is GRANTED.