Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCP00397, Date: 2024-06-25 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff, Edgar Macias, initiated this action for civil harassment on February 7, 2024, against doe defendants. Plaintiff alleges that he has received unsolicited messages with sexual content from anonymous phone numbers. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants have threatened Plaintiff in the anonymous messages that they will share Plaintiff’s personal secrets with the public and have accessed Plaintiff’s email accounts, social media accounts, and online storage accounts without consent.

On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff served Non-party Deponents Charter Communications, Inc., and Comcast, Inc. (collectively “Non-party Deponents”) with deposition subpoenas for the production of business records. Plaintiff sought to obtain basic subscriber information for certain users, accounts, or profiles that are connected to the anonymous messages. Non-party Deponents each refused to comply with the subpoenas without a court order.

On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Limited-Expedited Discovery. Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Non-party Deponents’ compliance with the subpoenas. Plaintiff does not seek sanctions.

A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to the subject matter of the action. (Code of Civil Procedure § 2017.010.) 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.) ¿If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)¿“A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . . .”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (a).)¿

If the nonparty deponent is a natural person, any person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy of it to that person.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b)(1).)¿ Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require the personal attendance and testimony of the nonparty deponent, if the subpoena so specifies.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c)(1).)¿¿¿¿

“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.)

Plaintiff properly served Non-party Deponents with subpoenas and notice of this motion. Non-party Deponents each refused to comply with the subpoenas without a court order.

(See Atrizadeh Decl., Exs. C, D.) Given that the subpoenas seek relevant information, and that this motion is unopposed, Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling Non-party Deponents’ compliance with the subpoenas.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Nonparties Charter Communications, Inc. and Comcast, Inc. are ordered to provide documents responsive to the subpoena within 30 days of this order.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c).)