Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV16659, Date: 2023-11-02 Tentative Ruling

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify.¿ (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1;¿Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)¿¿There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)¿¿ The court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right¿of privacy of the person.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1,¿subd. (a).)¿

Background and Analysis

On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff was involved in a collision where Defendant Mark Ronnie Ramos, sideswiped Plaintiff's vehicle while under the course and scope of his employment with Rapid Pasadena Services, LLC, and delivering packages on behalf of Amazon.com Services, LLC.

On May 16, 2023, Defendants propounded a subpoena for business records to four of Plaintiff's identified employers, including Farmer John’s Slaughterhouse. The Parties then met and conferred on the scope and language of the subpoenas and reached an agreement. On June 13, 2023, Defendants withdrew, amended, and re-served the four employment record subpoenas. Plaintiff did not object to the subpoena requests and the records were produced without issue. (Stecker Decl. ¶ 7.)

When Defendants attempted to serve Farmer John’s with the subpoena, Defendants were informed that Farmer John’s had closed and were directed to the current owners, Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation. Defendants prepared a business record subpoena for Smithfield, employing the same language previously agreed upon and not objected to. Plaintiff now moves the Court to quash Defendants’ subpoena to Smithfield. Plaintiff does not dispute this sequence of events or that he agreed on the scope and language of the subpoena to Smithfield’s predecessor.

The Court does not find Plaintiff’s motion to quash to be reasonably made under § 1987.1 for the following reasons: The Parties had previously reached an agreement on the language of the subpoena when it was initially directed at Farmer John's, Smithfield’s predecessor. Although Smithfield operates as a distinct entity, the nature, scope, and language of the subpoena is the same as those initially agreed upon. Plaintiff had already complied with the subpoenas for three other employers, using the same scope and language. Additionally, the purpose of the current subpoena is to obtain Plaintiff's employment records from his tenure at Farmer John's, to which Plaintiff has already consented. Because Farmer John’s has closed, the documents are now in the possession of Smithfield, which is why the subpoena had to be amended to be directed at Smithfield.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash and for sanctions is DENIED.

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 leave.