Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 19STC18324, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STC18324    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Department 27

Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date:           4/4/2024 at 1:30 p.m.

Case No./Name:       19STCV18324 JOSE VALENZUELA, et al. vs A & E APPLIANCE REPAIR SERVICES

Motion:                    Motion for Issuance of Out of State Commission

Moving Party:           Plaintiffs

Responding Party:    Unopposed

Notice:                     Sufficient

RULING:                            MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF OUT OF STATE COMMISSION IS GRANTED CONDITIONALLY

Background

On May 24, 2019, Plaintiffs, Jose Valenzuela, Arlene Olivan, Robert Ramirez, and Railene Ramirez, initiated this lawsuit against Defendants, A & E Appliance Repair Service, Inc. (“A&E”), and Artur Hovsepyan (“Hovsepyan”), for injuries stemming from a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs contend that on July 17, 2018, they were stationary in their vehicle when Hovsepyan collided with them from behind. Hovsepyan is identified as the employee-owner of A&E. Defendants assert that the collision happened around 3:00 p.m.

On March 28, 2021, Hovsepyan submitted a declaration stating that on the date of the incident he was using his vehicle solely for personal reasons at the time, not in any job-related capacity for A&E.  On June 8, 2023, Plaintiffs sought a deposition subpoena from Hovsepyan’s cell phone provider, H20 Wireless C/O Locus Telecommunications, Inc. (“H20 Wireless”), to obtain records of all calls, text messages, and data/cellphone usage on the date of the incident. On July 6, 2023, Defendants moved to quash the subpoena. On August 11, 2023, the Court partially denied the motion, finding the subpoena sought relevant evidence, particularly since Hovsepyan’s declaration made his employment status and potential cell phone use at the incident's time an issue. Despite acknowledging privacy concerns, the Court concluded that the need for relevant evidence outweighed Defendant’s privacy concerns. However, the Court agreed that the subpoena is overbroad. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs could seek the records, subject to review by a neutral regarding any discovery or privacy issues at Plaintiff’s expense. The parties have agreed to neutral William Diffenderfer, Esq. to review the records at Plaintiffs’ expense. Plaintiffs filed the present motion because Defendant would not authorize H20 wireless to produce the documents authorized by the Court.

Analysis

Pursuant to CCP § 2026.010(f), the court has authority for issuance of commission for out-of-state subpoena through a motion. The court has discretion for issuance of commission for out of state subpoena pursuant to CCP § 2029.100 et seq., of which both California and New Jersey are participatory states within the Interstate and International Depositions and Discovery Act.

According to the Court's August 11, 2023 ruling, Plaintiffs are entitled to the documents since Defendant has made its employment status on the day of the incident a point of contention. To resolve Defendant’s privacy concerns, Plaintiffs have consented for the records to be initially reviewed by neutral William Diffenderfer, Esq., at Plaintiffs' expense, a decision mutually agreed upon by the Parties. (Motion at p. 6.) Defendant did not file an opposition.

However, upon reviewing the subpoena in question (Ex. D), the Court noted that although the scope of production is in accordance with the Court’s August 2023 decision, the address specified for document production was erroneously listed as Plaintiffs’ counsel's office, not that of William Diffenderfer, Esq.  Consequently, the Court GRANTS the motion conditioned upon Plaintiff issuing a new subpoena with the corrected address for compliance. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without.