Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV27174, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV27174 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff Andrew Luis Miranda (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jeffrey Jay Sloan, Crawford & Company, and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On April 22, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Emkay, Inc. as Doe 1.
On December 29, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Estate of Jeffrey Jay Sloan (“Estate”) as Doe 2.
On December 6, 2023, Estate filed an answer.
On January 11, 2024, the Court dismissed Defendants Crawford & Company and Emkay, Inc., without prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
On July 5, 2024, Estate filed motions to compel compliance with subpoenas issued to Santo Nino Medical Clinic, CHC Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, and Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute. The motions were set for hearing on August 20, 2024. No oppositions have been filed.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 13, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
The Estate asks the Court to order Santo Nino Medical Clinic, CHC Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, and Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute to comply with deposition subpoenas for business records and impose sanctions.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 provides:
“(a) Any of the following methods may be used to obtain discovery within the state from a person who is not a party to the action in which the discovery is sought:
“(1) An oral deposition under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010).
“(2) A written deposition under Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010).
“(3) A deposition for production of business records and things under Article 4 (commencing with Section 2020.410) or Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).
“(b) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 2025.280, the process by which a nonparty is required to provide discovery is a deposition subpoena.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.020 provides:
“A deposition subpoena may command any of the following:
“(a) Only the attendance and the testimony of the deponent, under Article 3 (commencing with Section 2020.310).
“(b) Only the production of business records for copying, under Article 4 (commencing with Section 2020.410).
“(c) The attendance and the testimony of the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, under Article 5 (commencing with Section 2020.510).”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.)
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.
“(c) Nothing in this section shall require any person to move to quash, modify, or condition any subpoena duces tecum of personal records of any consumer served under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1985.3 or employment records of any employee served under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1985.6.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
DISCUSSION
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.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)
The proofs of service filed with the Court do not show that Estate served the moving papers on Santo Nino Medical Clinic, CHC Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, or Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute by any method. Estate has not shown that Santo Nino Medical Clinic, CHC Providence Holy Cross Medical Center, and Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute agreed to accept service by electronic service on Plaintiff’s counsel.
The Court denies the motions.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Estate of Jeffrey Jay Sloan’s motion to compel CHC Providence Holy Cross Medical Center to comply with a deposition subpoena.
The Court DENIES Defendant Estate of Jeffrey Jay Sloan’s motion to compel Los Angeles Orthopedic Institute to comply with a deposition subpoena.
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.