Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV34963, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34963    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff Alexander Hallstead (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Schueleke, Inc., Sergio Julian Castel (“Castel”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On November 8, 2021, Defendant Schuelke, Inc., erroneously sued and served as Schueleke, Inc. (“Schuelke”), filed an answer. 

On March 3, 2022, Castel filed an answer. 

On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel non-party Angelica Rosas to comply with a deposition subpoena and to appear for a deposition within 30 days. The motion was set for hearing on November 19, 2024.  No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is currently scheduled for May 5, 2025. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Angelica Rosas (“Rosas”) to comply with a deposition subpoena and appear for a deposition within 30 days.  Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose sanctions on Rosas. 

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. 

“(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.)  

          Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.240 provides: 

“A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena in any manner described in subdivision (c) of Section 2020.220 may be punished for contempt under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) without the necessity of a prior order of court directing compliance by the witness. The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.) 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 1992 provides: 

“A person failing to appear pursuant to a subpoena or a court order also forfeits to the party aggrieved the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), and all damages that he or she may sustain by the failure of the person to appear pursuant to the subpoena or court order, which forfeiture and damages may be recovered in a civil action.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1992.)         

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena on Rosas for a deposition scheduled on May 2, 2024.  After agreeing to attend the deposition, Rosas failed to appear.  Plaintiff’s counsel spoke with Rosas and then served another deposition subpoena for a deposition scheduled on August 1, 2024. Rosas confirmed that she would appear but she did not.  Plaintiff’s counsel has attempted to meet and confer with Rosas, without success. 

The Court grants the motion.  The Court orders Rosas to appear for a deposition and to produce the documents requested in the deposition subpoena within 30 days after the hearing on this motion. 

Plaintiff asks the Court to impose $500.00 in sanctions against Rosas under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1992 and 2020.240.  The Court grants the request and imposes $500.00 in sanctions on Rosas. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Alexander Hallstead’s motion to compel non-party Angelica Rosas’s compliance with a deposition subpoena.  The Court orders Angelica Rosas to appear for a deposition and to produce the documents requested in the deposition subpoena within 30 days of the hearing on this motion. 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Alexander Hallstead’s request for sanctions and orders Angelica Rosas to pay Plaintiff Alexander Hallstead $500.00 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 a proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.