Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 20STCV44903, Date: 2025-02-26 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. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
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: 20STCV44903 Hearing Date: February 26, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On November 23, 2020, Plaintiff Parviz Mohammady (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joey Lynn King (“Defendant”) and Does 1-100 for negligence.
On January 27, 2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena for deposition and production of business records and request for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on January 10, 2025. On December 16, 2024, Defendant withdrew the subpoena. (See Reply p. 2.) On December 19, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion to quash. On January 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to February 26, 2025.
Trial is currently scheduled for April 22, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash Defendant’s subpoena for production of Plaintiff’s file from Mercury Insurance Company (“Mercury”) and for the deposition of Mercury’s custodian of records.
Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides:
"(a) If 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 any person described in subdivision (b), 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 or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.
"(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, subdivision (g), provides in part:
“(g) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides:
“Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint
The complaint includes the following allegations:
On or about February 13, 2020, Plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle northbound on Noble Avenue, approaching Ventura Boulevard, when suddenly Defendant merged into his lane and collided with Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff sustained damages to the front right side of his vehicle and suffered severe bodily injury.
Defendants negligently entrusted, maintained, drove and operated their motor vehicle, causing the vehicle to strike and injure Plaintiff.
B. The subpoena
The subpoena issued to Mercury requests:
“Any and all documents and records pertaining to the insurance and claim file of [Plaintiff], including, but not limited to, all payments, policy information, listing of providers, correspondence, all log notes, witnesses statements, declaration of coverage, medical records, property damages, repair estimates and repairs, color photographs pertaining to [Plaintiff] . . . regarding Claim Number: CAPA01901708, Claim Number: CAPA-00405140, and/or Date of Loss: 6/27/2022. From any and all dates.”
C. Plaintiff’s motion
Plaintiff moves the quash Defendant’s subpoena, arguing, among other things, that Defendant served the subpoena after the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Defendant.
In opposition, Defendant acknowledges that her counsel served the subpoena after the discovery cut-off date but blames the error on “a good faith misunderstanding that the discovery cutoff trailed the trial continuance.” As noted, Defendant withdrew the subpoena on December 16, 2024.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as moot. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The
Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff Parviz Mohammady’s motion to quash Defendant Joey Lynn King’s subpoena for deposition and
production of business records. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff Parviz Mohammady’s request for sanctions.
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.