Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV02422, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV02422    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Sevak Minasyan (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 17, 2023, he was driving eastbound on Glenwood Avenue when Defendant Alex Antekelyan’s (“Defendant”) vehicle failed to properly make a stop at a designated stop sign and proceeded to make an unsafe U-turn at the intersection of Glenwood Avenue and Irving, resulting in a collision with Plaintiff’s vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges he suffered bodily injuries and property damage. 

The complaint, filed June 21, 2024, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; and (2) negligence per se. 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash subpoena, modify subpoena, and/or protective order.

On April 8, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to CalFund issued by Defendant on February 24, 2025. 

            The Deposition Subpoena seeks the following:

Complete employment records from 9/17/23 to the present, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: earnings, all payroll, application for employment, work absenteeism or time off, benefits, incident reports, W-2’s, 1099’s, claim records, pre-employment exam records, and employee progress records. 

Complete insurance records from 9/17/23 to the present, including but not limited to any records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically: insurance records, worker’s compensation records, medical records, correspondence, payments, claims, and any other documents contained within the insurance file.

(Mot., Ex. A.)  On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff served an objection to the Deposition Subpoena.  (Mot., Ex. B.)

            Plaintiff argues that he provided verified responses to Defendant’s FROGs, wherein he stated he was not seeking loss of earnings.  (Mot., Ex. C.)  For example, in response to FROG No. 8.1, which asks if Plaintiff attributes any loss of income or earning capacity to the incident, he objected to the FROG but ultimately answered “No.”  For FROGs 8.2 to 8.8, which ask about details regarding his work, his monthly income, his lost income as a result of the incident, etc., he stated that the FROGs were not applicable since he was not seeking loss of income “at this time.” 

            In opposition, Defendant argues that the motion is procedurally defective because it was not timely filed, was not served on the custodian of records for CalFund, and fails to include a separate statement.  CCP § 1985.3(g) states that a consumer may bring a motion to quash or modify the subpoena and notice shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least 5 days prior to production; however, failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash/modify but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense for the improper release of records.  This motion was filed and served on April 1, 2025 on defense counsel and Ontellus (the deposition officer).  Based on the proof of service, it does not appear that the motion was served on CalFund.  Although the Court recognizes that CalFund was not served with this motion, it appears that CalFund has not made the production as requested in the deposition subpoena.  Further, based on the ruling in this order (as discussed below), Defendant is ordered to modify the subpoena to limit the documents sought such that a new deposition subpoena will issue for CalFund’s compliance.

            Defendant also argues that the subpoena seeks relevant information because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he is seeking “Damages for loss of earnings in an amount to be determined at trial” in paragraph (c) of the Prayer for Relief.  (Compl. at p.7.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not withdrawn the claim in the complaint and that his discovery responses that he is not seeking loss of income or earning capacity “at this time” is uncertain.  Defendant also argues that Plaintiff was unable to remember at his deposition what days of work he missed due to the subject incident and could not recall whether he had health insurance through his employer.  Defendant argues that the documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff’s loss of earnings claim in the complaint, Plaintiff’s equivocal posturing regarding loss of earnings in his discovery responses, to fill in the gaps of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, and to verify Plaintiff’s discovery responses and deposition testimony.  Defendant states that despite efforts to meet and confer, Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the informal efforts and instead filed this motion.

            The Court is inclined to deny the motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, and grant the request to modify the subpoena.  The complete records related to Plaintiff’s work from September 17, 2023 (the date of the subject incident) to the present are overbroad and not relevant to this action.  The Court will modify the subpoena so that production will be limited to paystubs, work absenteeism or time off requests/approvals, insurance records, and worker’s compensation records.  These documents should be sufficient to ascertain what days Plaintiff took off from work around the time of the subject incident and thereafter, whether his earnings were affected, and insurance information for the purpose of this action. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sevak Minasyan’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.  The motion is granted in part such that the deposition subpoena issued on CalFund will be modified so as to be limited to paystubs, work absenteeism or time off requests/approvals, insurance records, and worker’s compensation records from September 17, 2023 to the present. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer to discuss whether they are willing to stipulate to the issue of damages regarding loss of earnings and earning capacity. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: April 25, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court