Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV40216, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV40216 Hearing Date: November 14, 2023 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs Jonathan Mota Ariza (“Ariza”) and Veronica Contreras Martinez (“Martinez”) filed this action against Defendants Emmanuel Hawks (“Defendant”) and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle negligence.
On April 8, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On October 18, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel Third-Party T-Mobile’s compliance with a deposition subpoena for records to be heard on November 14, 2023. No opposition has been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for February 27, 2024.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Defendant requests that the Court order T-Mobile to comply with the deposition subpoena for records.
LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.) A deposition subpoena may command the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The Court may order a third party to comply with a deposition subpoena upon any terms or condition that the court declares. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480 provides in part:
“(a) If 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.
“(b) This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.
“(c) Notice of this motion shall be given to all parties and to the deponent either orally at the examination, or by subsequent service in writing. If the notice of the motion is given orally, the deposition officer shall direct the deponent to attend a session of the court at the time specified in the notice.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a), (b), (c), (i).)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court denies Defendant’s request for judicial notice because it is not made in a separate document. (See Los Angeles Superior Court local rule 3.8(a) [“The request must be made by separate document . . .”].)
DISCUSSION
A. Defendant properly served the motion on T-Mobile
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346, provides: “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”
Defendant properly served this motion on T-Mobile via electronic service as authorized by T-Mobile.
B. T-Mobile is required to comply with Defendant’s deposition subpoena
On June 12, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to compel T-Mobile to comply with Defendant’s deposition subpoena for records served on December 22, 2022 because Defendant did not properly serve the motion on T-Mobile.
On August 11, 2023, Defendant served a new deposition subpoena on T-Mobile. The deposition subpoena requested records consisting of “all call logs to provide telephone numbers and text messages related to Jonathan Mota, DOB: [omitted], SSN: UNKNOWN, to include phone numbers Jonathan Mota telephone number [omitted] text numbers in/out; and any other identifying information. Includes but not limited to records/documents that may be stored digitally and/or electronically, from between the dates of 02/20/2018 and 03/12/2018.”
T-Mobile objected to the deposition subpoena, stating it had received an order denying a motion to compel records. T-Mobile apparently was referring to the Court’s June 12, 2023 order denying Defendant’s earlier motion to compel T-Mobile to respond to Defendant’s previous deposition subpoena. T-Mobile has asserted no objections to the newly-issued deposition subpoena.
The cell-phone records sought are relevant to Defendant’s contention that -- contrary to the complaint’s assertion -- Plaintiff Veronica Contreras Martinez was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident. (See Complaint ¶ 8.)
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Emmanuel Hawks’s motion to compel Third Party T-Mobile to comply with Defendant's deposition subpoena for records. T-Mobile is ordered to produce the requested records within 30 days of the hearing on this motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.