Judge Katherine Chilton, Case 20STLC02507 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Jorge Hernandez’s Motion to Compel Non-Party Sanchez Medical Center’s Compliance with Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. In addition, the Court orders Non-Party Sanchez Medical Center’s to pay sanctions in the amount of $364.15.

On March 16, 2020, Plaintiff Nicole Jackson (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence against Defendant Jorge Hernandez (“Defendant”). On January 7, 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging identical causes of action against Defendant.

Defendant moves the Court to compel non-party Sanchez Medical Center’s (“SMC”) compliance with the deposition subpoena served on SMC by Defendant to obtain Plaintiff’s medical and billing records, and radiology images.

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)

A service of a deposition subpoena shall be effected a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).) Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).) A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)

A “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail¿or electronic service¿at an address¿or electronic service address¿specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346.)

A nonparty deponent may be subject to contempt or monetary sanctions for disobeying a court order (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (k)) or for “flouting” the discovery process by suppressing or destroying evidence (Temple Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 464, 476). A nonparty may be punished by contempt (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240) or payment of $500.00 (Code Civ. Proc., § 1992).

On April 4, 2022 Defendant subpoenaed SMC to obtain Plaintiff’s medical and billing records, and radiology images for the treatment that Plaintiff received for the injuries resulting from the subject incident. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 2-5, Exh. A.) To date, SMC has failed to provide the requested documents, or any response/objections thereto, despite Defendant’s attempt to obtain the same. (Kim Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.)

The Court finds that SMC has failed to comply with its discovery obligation. In addition, SMC has failed to file an opposition and explain to the Court why it failed to provide the requested documents or a response. Plaintiff filed a late opposition, on July 25, 2022, which the Court has considered. Plaintiff claims that she has “currently supplied defendant with all pertinent and available records pertaining to the accident.” (Opp. at 3). But defendant is entitled to test that claim by subpoenaing records from a third party.

Plaintiff also states that, on April 29, 2022, she filed a motion to quash the subpoena and noticed it for June 22, 2023, which is after the trial date of October 3, 2022 despite the fact that the Court has available motion dates prior to the trial date.[1] Moreover, the motion to quash does not attach the relevant subpoena and the motion itself makes no reference to SMC, but rather references records requested from Dr. Daniel Sanchez and asks for records relating to another matter, Jackson v. Craft Beer Guild Distributing of Los Angeles. (4/29//22 Motion to Quash at 4-5). The subpoena to SMC does not request such records (Mot. to Compel, Exhibit A), so the Court can only conclude that the motion to quash relates to a different subpoena directed to Dr. Sanchez. No motion to quash has been filed with respect to this subpoena to SMC.

Accordingly, the Court orders SMC to comply with Defendant’s subpoena. The Court finds that $364.15 is a reasonable amount of sanctions to impose against SMC. (Kim Decl., ¶ 10.)

Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Compel SMC’s Compliance with Defendant’s Subpoena is GRANTED. The Court orders SMC to pay sanctions in the amount of $364.15.

[1] Indeed, Plaintiff has noticed several motions to quash after the current trial date of October 3, 2022 despite earlier hearing dates being available. “Trial dates are firm.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332. Plaintiff cannot obtain a trial continuance by scheduling motions after the trial date.