Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV25042, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV25042    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 72

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

DEPARTMENT 72

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

IN SONG,

 

                                  Plaintiff,

 

         v.

 

 

ENVIRON PHASE CONSULTING CO., et al.,

 

                                  Defendants.

 

 Case No:  22STCV25042

 

 

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  December 14, 2023

 Calendar Number:  5

 

 

 

Defendants Enviro Development Inc. and Environ Phase Consulting Co. (collectively, “Defendants”) move for an order compelling third party Shinhan Bank America (“Shinhan”) to produce documents in accordance with the document requests in the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”) that Defendants served on it on August 4, 2023.

 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents to the requests within 20 days of the issuance of this order.

 

Defendant shall provide notice.

 

Background

 

This action arises out of an environmental report (the “Report”) prepared by Defendants in connection with a property that Plaintiff purchased. The Report failed to discover certain contamination on the property. Plaintiff contends that she relied on the report in deciding to purchase the property. Defendants contend that the report was prepared for Shinhan, and not Plaintiff.

 

Defendants served a subpoena on Shinhan on August 4, 2023, seeking the production of business records in order to determine how Plaintiff came to obtain and rely on the report. Shinhan has not provided any substantive records, but did send Defendants a letter saying that Shinhan could not find any account owned by Defendants. Defendants have attempted to contact Shinhan to resolve this issue, but have received no response.

 

Defendants filed this motion on October 18, 2023. Neither Shinhan nor Plaintiff filed an opposition.

 

Legal Standard

 

"Any party may obtain discovery…by taking in California the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action. The person deposed may be a natural person, an organization such as a public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, or a governmental agency." (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) "Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280 the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena." (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, subd. (b)).

 

“A deposition subpoena may command any of the following: (a) Only the attendance and the testimony of the deponent, under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2020.310). (b) Only the production of business records for copying, under Article 4 (commencing with Section 2020.410). (c)The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

 

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court … the court, upon motion … or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

 

Discussion

 

Shinhan’s failure to produce responsive documents appears to be based on a misunderstanding. As discussed above, Shinhan contacted Defendants to inform them that it did not have accounts for them. Defendants seek records regarding Plaintiff, not Defendants.

 

Defendants’ positions with regards to the specific requests are laid out in their separate statement. The Court rules on the requests as follows:

Request No. 1: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 2: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 3: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 4: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 5: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 6: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 7: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.

 

Request No. 8: Shinhan shall produce all responsive documents.