Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV18721, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV18721    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 27

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ARMAN DAYAN,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

STANLEY SCHUSTER, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 20STCV18721

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

February 7, 2023

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 15, 2020, plaintiff Arman Dayan (“Plaintiff”) filed this negligence action against defendant Stanley Schuster (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges he was struck by Defendant’s vehicle while walking in a crosswalk.

Trial is currently scheduled for April 10, 2023.

On January 11, 2023, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for business records served on non-party Dental Arts of Beverly Hills. Both Plaintiff and Dental Arts of Beverly Hills oppose.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1(a) states, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 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.”

Upon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with subpoenas. (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2(a) states, in relevant part, “. . . in making an order pursuant to motion made . . . under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification . . . .”

III.        DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for business records served on non-party Dental Arts of Beverly Hills on March 13, 2022.

No one disputes Defendant’s entitlement to all the records sought. The dispute lies with production of all the records to date. Dental Arts of Beverly Hills has been producing the records in a piecemeal fashion and some of the records have not been complete or have been improperly downloaded, etc. Defendant has reached out many times to request the fully compliant records, and Dental Arts of Beverly Hills and Plaintiff have responded and have kept producing records even as recent as January 17, 2023, after the motion was filed.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED.  Dental Arts of Beverly Hills is ordered to comply within 30 days.  The Court declines to award sanctions as there has been continuous efforts to produce all the records.

IV.         CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Non-party Dental Arts of Beverly Hills is to provide full compliance with the subpoena within 30 days of this order.

 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Dated this 7th day of February 2023

 

 

 

 

Hon. Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court