Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV17109, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17109    Hearing Date: February 28, 2025    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiffs Erik Courtney, Nadine Courtney, and Aurelia Courtney, a minor, filed this action against Defendants Holly Carrel Davis (“Davis”) and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and loss of consortium. 

On May 31, 2022, the Court appointed Erik Courtney to serve as Plaintiff Aurelia Courtney’s guardian ad litem. 

On July 14, 2022, Davis filed an answer. 

On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to include Defendant Kanzeon Corp. as Doe 1 (“Kanzeon”).  On December 28, 2023, Kanzeon filed an answer. 

On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. to produce documents pursuant to subpoenas.  The motion was set for hearing on February 28, 2025.  No opposition has been filed.

Trial is currently scheduled for March 28, 2025. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. to produce documents pursuant to subpoenas. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

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.) 

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 on 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. 

* * *

  “(i) If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition. 

“(j) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subds. (a), (b), (c), (i), (j).) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel non-parties Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. to produce documents in responses to deposition subpoenas.  However, the proof of service attached to Plaintiffs’ motion does not show that Plaintiffs personally served the motion on Tesla, Inc. or Tesla Motors, Inc. (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346), or served the motion on them at all.  The Court denies the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice the motion to compel Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Motors, Inc. to produce documents pursuant to subpoenas filed by Plaintiffs Erik Courtney, Nadine Courtney, and Aurelia Courtney. 

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.