Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01192579, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Ruling:  Off Calendar – no hearing will be held.  Plaintiff Judy A. Hecht’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash subpoenas seeking medical records and pharmacy records is DENIED without prejudice.

First, the Motion is a combined motion to quash that is actually four separate motions.   The Motion seeks to quash the subpoenas issued by Defendants to four separate medical providers.  Plaintiff only made one reservation (for four motions) and therefore only paid one reservation fee.  Making one and paying for a single reservation for four motions not only deprives the court, and therefore the People of the State of California, of additional filing fees to which they are entitled, it also deprives the court of the ability to accurately manage its law and motion calendar.  

Second, no proof of service has been filed as to the motion itself.  While Defendants appear to have received notice of the motion based upon the filing of an opposition, there is no proof that service was effectuated on the third parties.  California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346 mandates that service of motion papers on a non-party deponent must be served personally unless the nonparty agrees to service by mail or e-service. Here, Plaintiff has failed to submit any proof of service evidencing service on the non-parties, let alone personal service. 

Third, Plaintiff failed to file a Separate Statement. California Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(a)(5) requires that a motion to quash the production of documents at a deposition “be accompanied by a separate statement.” Here, the Motion seeks to quash the production of documents at deposition and Rule 3.1345(a)(5) specifically states a separate statement is required for such a motion. 

Based upon the foregoing deficiencies, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice.