Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 24STCP00338, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP00338    Hearing Date: June 6, 2024    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Thursday, June 6, 2024

Case Name:                             School District Financial Services, LLC, et al. v. Greg Beck

Case No.:                                24STCP00338

Motion:                                   Petition to Enforce Subpoena to Produce Documents Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600

Moving Party:                         Petitioners School District Financial Services, LLC and John Thomas Starling

Responding Party:                   Respondent Greg Beck

Notice:                                    OK

Tentative Ruling:                    Petitioners School District Financial Services, LLC and John Thomas Starling’s Petition to Enforce Subpoena to Produce Documents Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600 is GRANTED.

Respondent is ordered to provide responses to Petitioner’s Subpoena, without objections, within 20 days of this Court’s order.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2024, Petitioners School District Financial Services, LLC and John Thomas Starling (collectively “Petitioners”) initiated this action against Respondent Greg Beck (“Respondent”) to enforce compliance with a subpoena pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600. On May 22, 2024, Respondent filed his opposition papers. Thereafter, on May 30, 2024, Petitioners filed their reply.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            Petitioners are involved in an out-of-state action in Arkansas between them and plaintiff Dennis Chadwick Holsclaw, and this action arises from an alleged breach of contract claim for violating the parties’ Membership Buy/Sell Agreement, including by Petitioners’ unilaterally retaining a business valuation expert after terminating Mr. Holsclaw’s employment with the School District on December 31, 2021. In their answer to the action, Petitioners allege that Mr. Holsclaw violated the non-disparagement agreement with the School District. In particular, Petitioners allege that Mr. Holsclaw made at least one disparaging comment about Mr. Starling to Mr. Beck. During the course of this litigation, Petitioners subpoenaed Respondent on October 17, 2023 for the production of records relevant to the Arkansas action requesting all communications between Respondent and Mr. Holsclaw from January 1, 2017 to the present that related to Mr. Starling, the School District, or any matters alleged in the Arkansas Action. However, Respondent did not respond.

            Petitioners argue that Respondent has waived any objections because he failed to respond to the subpoena. They further argue that this information is relevant to their counterclaim against Mr. Holsclaw in the Arkansas Action because it would show that Mr. Holsclaw breached his contractual obligations following his termination.

OPPOSITION

            Respondent first argues that the instant petition is untimely under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.480(b) because it was not filed within 60 days after the date of compliance, which was November 3, 2023. Second, Respondent argues that the instant petition is moot because he has substantially complied by providing his responses to the deposition officer, Veritext after being served with the subpoena. These responses were severed again on March 26, 2024 after receiving notice of the petition. Third, the petition is defective because the notice did not specify the grounds on which the petition is based on. Lastly, Respondent contends that sanctions are not warranted under the circumstances because Code-compliant responses had been provided.

REPLY

            In reply, Petitioners maintain that the March 26, 2024 responses were untimely and as a result, Respondent had waived all objections to the subpoena. Also, there is no proof that Respondent served any responses to Veritext. Next, Petitioners argue that the instant petition is not moot because Respondent’s claim that the requested document never existed is false when there is proof that Respondent sent text messages that are responsive to the subpoena. Moreover, Respondent’s reliance on California Rule of Court rule 3.1110(a) and Code of Civil Procedure § 1010 regarding the lack of notice are inapplicable because Petitioners have filed a petition, not a motion. Lastly, Petitioners argue that the petition is not untimely because the record of deposition can only be completed when the deponent has served his objections or responses to the subpoena.

ANALYSIS

I.          Motion to Compel Subpoena Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600

A.        Legal Standard

Under the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act (Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.100, et seq.), a party to a foreign proceeding may obtain a subpoena from the clerk of the superior court in the county where the discovery is sought to be conducted.  See Code Civ. Proc. § 2029.300.) If a dispute arises relating to the subpoena, the party may file a petition with the superior court seeking a court order to enforce the subpoena.  Id. § 2029.600(a). California statutes and court rules governing subpoenas and sanctions apply to the dispute.  Id. § 2029.500.

B.        Procedural Issues

            Respondent raises two procedural arguments as to why the instant petition should be denied, neither of which are persuasive. First, Respondent argues that the instant petition is untimely because it was not filed within “60 days after the completion of the record of

the deposition.”  Opposition at pg. 7, relying on Code of Civ. Proc. § 2025.480(b).  Respondent reasons that, because the date of production for the subpoena was November 3, 2021, the deadline to file the instant petition was January 2, 2024.  Ibid. 

However, this argument misconstrues what “completion of the record” means.  Courts have held that the deadline under Section 2025.480 begins to run only when the deponent has served his objections or responses to the subpoena.  See Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192 (“[T]he 60-day period during which a motion to compel must be filed, begins to run when the deponent serves objections on the party. At the time the objections are served, the record of deposition is complete.”)  In this instance, Respondent claims that he served his responses to Veritext soon after receiving the subpoena.  See Beck Decl. ¶ 4.  This is a self-serving statement because Respondent has failed to specify what day the responses were served and does not provide any further proof to corroborate his statement.  Furthermore, Veritext has confirmed that they did not receive any response in connection with the subpoena at issue here.  See Suppl. Llewellyn Decl. ¶ 4.  Based on the record before the Court, it appears that Respondent served his responses on March 26, 2024, which was after the instant petition was filed.  See Beck Decl. ¶ 1, Exh. A. Therefore, because the record was not completed until March 26, 2024, the instant petition is not untimely.

Second, Respondent argues that a notice of the petition failed to identify the grounds upon which relief is sought.  See Opposition at pg. 9, relying on Code of Civil Procedure §1010 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110.  This is equally unpersuasive because the law cited by Respondent is in reference to motions, not petitions.  Because the instant petition is brought under Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600, the request is treated as a petition for relief and operates like a complaint, and there is no separate requirement for a “notice of petition.”

Therefore, because the instant petition is not procedurally defective, the Court will address the merits.

C.        Merits

            Here, Petitioners seek to compel Respondent to provide responses to the subpoena served upon him on October 17, 2023.  See Llewellyn Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Exhs. 1-2.  The subpoena seeks the production of records relevant to the Arkansas action requesting all communications between Respondent and Mr. Holsclaw from January 1, 2017 to the present that related to Mr. Starling, the School District, or any matters alleged in the Arkansas Action.  Ibid. 

            In opposition, Respondent argues that the instant petition is moot because Code-compliant responses had been served on March 26, 2024.  Opposition at pg. 8.  The Court disagrees because, as Petitioners’ point out, these responses improperly include objections.  Because Respondent’s responses were untimely, he has waived the ability to assert any objections. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (1999) 59 Cal. App. 4th 263, 273.  Thus, these were improperly included. 

            Accordingly, the instant petition is granted.

III.       Conclusion

            Based on the foregoing, Petitioners’ Petition to Enforce Subpoena to Produce Documents Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 2029.600 is GRANTED.

 Respondent is ordered to provide responses without objections within 20 days of this order.  

Moving party is ordered to give Notice of Ruling and to attach a copy of the Court's Tentative Ruling , as an exhibit “A” to said notice, as the final order of the Court.