Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 2021-01185715, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Non Parties Honorable Carmen R. Luege, Honorable Kimberly A. Knill
Motion to Quash

The motion by non-parties, the Hon. Kimberly A. Knill and the Hon. Carmen R. Luege (collectively, the “Subpoenaed Judges”), for an order quashing the “Order[s] to Attend Court or Provide Documents: Subpoena/Subpoena Duces Tecum” is granted.

Plaintiff Kowen Lai (“Plaintiff”) objects to the motion as being untimely. The Court finds any defect in notice has been waived, because Plaintiff opposed the motion on the merits. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff, himself, failed to serve his opposing papers in a timely manner. However, the Court exercises its discretion to consider Plaintiff’s untimely, opposing papers, because it realizes Plaintiff’s tardiness was likely the result of the defect in notice. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not suffered any prejudice.

On the merits, the motion is denied, for all the reasons stated in the Court’s 07/20/22 Minute Order, (ROA 729). When the Court declined to issue a protective order “prohibiting Lai form any further attempts to compel testimony or the production of documents from the Non-Parties, other judicial officers, or court personnel,” because it “would be premature,” the Court did not envision that Plaintiff would construe this order to mean that he could serve substantively identical subpoenas, on the Subpoenaed Judges, for a second time. To be clear, this “second round” of subpoenas was wholly improper. To the extent Plaintiff disagreed with the Court’s prior ruling, he could have sought reconsideration under CCP section 1008(a), or possibly by writ review. Instead, Plaintiff chose to issue substantively identical subpoenas, for a second time. Plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the 07/20/22 Minute Order will not be condoned. The ruling remains the same. The subpoenas issued on 08/01/22 are quashed.

The Subpoenaed Judges shall give notice of the ruling.