Judge Kristin S. Escalante , Case 21STCV37883 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kristin S. Escalante , Case: 21STCV37883, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 24 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Submission Instructions.

1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SMCDEPT24@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. You must cc all other parties on the email.

2. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, case name and number, date of hearing and the party you represent in the body of the email. 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 motions

3. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a motion placed off-calendar and parties are ordered to cancel the reservation on CRS.

4. If all parties submit, the tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date. The moving party shall give notice of the final ruling.

5.Tentative rulings are not invitations or opportunities to file further documents relative to the hearing before the Court. Said document(s) will not be considered by the Court.

MOVING PARTY: Arthur S. Hirsch (Plaintiff); Mary Hirsch (Plaintiff); Arthur S. Hirsch as Co-Trustee (Plaintiff) et al.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Court has read the moving papers in the above-captioned motions and announces its tentative rulings in open Court.

The unopposed Motion to Quash Defendants' Subpoena for the Deposition of and Production of Business Records From Michael J Sparks, CPA; reservation no.: 426375969342 filed by Plaintiffs Arthur S. Hirsch and Mary Hirsh is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Arthur S. Hirsh and Mary Hirsh (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order quashing the deposition subpoena and production of business records of Michael J. Sparks (“Deponent”) CPA by Defendants Ronald Friedman and Marcum LLP (“Defendants”) improperly served on Plaintiffs. (Notice of Mtn., p. 5.) Defendants do not oppose the motion.

Discussion

Where the witness whose deposition is sought is not a party, a subpoena must be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, 2025.280.) “[T]he service of a subpoena is made by delivering a copy, or a ticket containing its substance, to the witness personally. . . The service shall be made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance.” (Code Civ. Proc., §1987) If a subpoena requires the production of documents, then upon motion by a party, the court may “make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or direction compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

On February 20, 2023, Defendants emailed Plaintiffs the deposition subpoena for Deponent and advised that they were serving the subpoena on Plaintiffs’ office. (Declaration of Christopher Smith [“Smith Decl.”], ¶10, Ex. H.) Defendants have not yet served the subpoena on Deponent and Plaintiffs state that they do not currently represent Deponent. (Smith Decl., ¶12.) Plaintiffs now seek to quash the improperly served subpoena on the grounds that it seeks testimony and documents regarding information protected by the tax return privilege and the privacy privilege, it is unduly burdensome on Deponent, it seeks irrelevant information, and the source of information are readily available from another source.

The deposition subpoena was not served on the deponent as required by the code of civil procedure. (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.010, 2025.280.) Accordingly, the motion is granted. Should Defendants properly serve the subpoena on Deponent at a later time, Plaintiffs may bring a motion regarding the merits of the subpoena.