Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV23638, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23638    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 27

Complaint Filed:         7/21/22 

Trial Date:                   7/18/24 

Unopposed

 

Hon. Lee S. Arian 

Department 27 

 

Hearing Date:                            2/29/2024 at 1:30 p.m. 

Case Name:                             ARA CARAPET MANUKIAN vs TRADER JOE'S COMPANY et. al.

Case No.:                                22STCV23638 

Motion:                                   MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO DR. FARHAD NASR CHIMEH

Moving Party:                         Defendant TRADER JOE’S COMPANY 

Responding Party:                   Plaintiff ARA CARAPET MANUKIAN

Notice:                                    Sufficient

Shape Ruling:                                   Defendant’s Motion To Compel Compliance With Subpoena                                         To Dr. Farhad Nasr Chimeh Is DENIED

 

 

Background

 

Plaintiff Ara Carapet Manukian filed a lawsuit against Defendant Trader Joe’s following an incident on August 6, 2020, where he alleges he tripped over an ergonomic mat in a Trader Joe’s store. Through its investigation, Defendant discovered undisclosed medical providers whot Plaintiff had consulted, including Dr. Farhad Nasr Chimeh. On August 30, 2023, Defendant subpoenaed Dr. Farhad Nasr Chimeh for Plaintiff’s medical and billing records. Dr. Chimeh did not respond to the subpoena or Defendant's attempts to meet and confer. Consequently, Defendant filed a motion on December 7, 2023, to compel Dr. Chimeh to comply with the subpoena for documents. The motion is unopposed.

 

Legal Standard and Analysis

 

CCP § 2020.010 permits discovery of non-party witnesses through oral and written depositions. (See CCP § 2020.010(a)(1), (2); Hawkins v. TACA International Airlines, S.A. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 466, 476.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, the production of business records, or both. (CCP § 2020.020.) Additional requirements regarding notification and a right to object are in place where the records sought are consumer records, including personal medical records. (See CCP § 1985.3.)  

 

Two provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure govern motions to compel responses to deposition subpoenas. CCP § 1987.1 provides that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party or a witness] . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”  

 

CCP § 2025.480(a) similarly provides that “[i]f a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” Unlike CCP § 1987.1, CCP § 2025.480 also includes a time limit. If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (CCP § 2025.480(b); Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 CA4th 123, 127.) The deposition record is “complete” either on the date documents are specified for production or on the date objections are served. (Board of Registered Nursing v. Sup.Ct. (Johnson & Johnson) (2021) 59 CA5th 1011, 1032-1033.)

 

Here, no objections were served. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, the deposition record is deemed complete on the date the documents were specified for production, September 27, 2023. (Mathis Decl. ¶ 6 and Exhibit 3 to Mathis Decl.) Defendant filed the current motion on December 7, 2023, surpassing the 60-day deadline, rendering the motion untimely.

 

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

 

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 leave.