Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case 37-2020-00046387-CU-OE-CTL 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2020-00046387-CU-OE-CTL, Date: 2023-07-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - July 25, 2023

07/27/2023 01:30:00 PM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other employment Discovery Hearing 37-2020-00046387-CU-OE-CTL HEREDIA VS SAN YSIDRO HEALTH CENTER INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Compel Discovery, 06/09/2023

1. The Motion (ROA # 804) of Plaintiff Audrey Heredia ('Plaintiff') for an order compelling the deposition of Maria Franco, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant CENTRO DE SALUD DE LA COMUNIDAD DE SAN YSIDRO, INC. ('Defendant') and its attorneys of record, Ms. Maria C. Roberts, Ms. Dessi N. Day, and Mr. Noel Meza, is DENIED.

This Motion to compel the deposition of Maria Franco is not timely. CCP 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 127 ('The question on appeal is whether this 60–day limit applies to a subpoena for business records as distinguished from a subpoena for an oral or written deposition. Here, in response to a subpoena for business records, the nonparties served timely objections and did not produce any documents. The trial court granted a motion to compel brought more than 60 days after the objections were received, stating that, because no 'deposition' had been taken, the time limit was not applicable. We reverse, concluding that the 60–day limit applies because a response to a business records subpoena, namely, objections, is a 'record of the deposition.'). See also Defendant's opposition at page 4.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

Defendant's counter request for sanctions is GRANTED. That this Motion was not timely filed is entirely within the control of the moving party, regardless of the nature of the objections asserted by the opposing party to the deposition notice, and was without substantial justification. Attorney Roberts' $350 hourly rate is reasonable. The services, as limited, was reasonable and necessary. Plaintiff only is directed to pay total sanctions $700.

_____ 2. The Motion (ROA # 809) of Plaintiff Audrey Heredia ('Plaintiff') for an order compelling the deposition of Chad Dawson, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant CENTRO DE SALUD DE LA COMUNIDAD DE SAN YSIDRO, INC. ('Defendant') and its attorneys of record, Ms. Maria C. Roberts, Ms. Dessi N. Day, and Mr. Noel Meza, is DENIED.

This Motion to compel the deposition of Chad Dawson is not timely. CCP 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 127 ('The question on appeal is whether this 60–day limit applies to a subpoena for business records as distinguished from a subpoena for an oral or Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HEREDIA VS SAN YSIDRO HEALTH CENTER INC [EFILE] 37-2020-00046387-CU-OE-CTL written deposition. Here, in response to a subpoena for business records, the nonparties served timely objections and did not produce any documents. The trial court granted a motion to compel brought more than 60 days after the objections were received, stating that, because no 'deposition' had been taken, the time limit was not applicable. We reverse, concluding that the 60–day limit applies because a response to a business records subpoena, namely, objections, is a 'record of the deposition.'). See also Defendant's opposition at page 4.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

_____ 3. The Motion (ROA # 814) of Plaintiff Audrey Heredia ('Plaintiff') for an order compelling the deposition of Katrinna Craig, and for monetary sanctions against Defendant CENTRO DE SALUD DE LA COMUNIDAD DE SAN YSIDRO, INC. ('Defendant') and its attorneys of record, Ms. Maria C. Roberts, Ms. Dessi N. Day, and Mr. Noel Meza, is DENIED.

This Motion to compel the deposition of Katrinna Craig is not timely. CCP 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 127 ('The question on appeal is whether this 60–day limit applies to a subpoena for business records as distinguished from a subpoena for an oral or written deposition. Here, in response to a subpoena for business records, the nonparties served timely objections and did not produce any documents. The trial court granted a motion to compel brought more than 60 days after the objections were received, stating that, because no 'deposition' had been taken, the time limit was not applicable. We reverse, concluding that the 60–day limit applies because a response to a business records subpoena, namely, objections, is a 'record of the deposition.'). See also Defendant's opposition at page 4.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

_____ 4. The Motion (ROA # 819) of Plaintiff Audrey Heredia ('Plaintiff') for an order compelling the deposition of Defendant CENTRO DE SALUD DE LA COMUNIDAD DE SAN YSIDRO, INC. ('Defendant'), and for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Ms. Maria C. Roberts, Ms. Dessi N.

Day, and Mr. Noel Meza, is DENIED.

This Motion to compel the deposition of Defendant is not timely. CCP 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 123, 127 ('The question on appeal is whether this 60–day limit applies to a subpoena for business records as distinguished from a subpoena for an oral or written deposition. Here, in response to a subpoena for business records, the nonparties served timely Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: HEREDIA VS SAN YSIDRO HEALTH CENTER INC [EFILE] 37-2020-00046387-CU-OE-CTL objections and did not produce any documents. The trial court granted a motion to compel brought more than 60 days after the objections were received, stating that, because no 'deposition' had been taken, the time limit was not applicable. We reverse, concluding that the 60–day limit applies because a response to a business records subpoena, namely, objections, is a 'record of the deposition.'). See also Defendant's opposition at page 4.

Plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendant has not acted without substantial justification.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984412