Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: 22PSCV01755, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV01755, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01755 Hearing Date: April 17, 2025 Dept: 6

CASE NAME: Joy Yin, et al. v. Nicholas Simmons, et al.

Defendant Prager Metis CPA’s, LLC’s Motion for Order Quashing Plaintiffs Joy Yin and Ho Seong Lee’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES Defendant Prager Metis CPA’s, LLC’s motion for order quashing Plaintiffs Joy Yin and Ho Seong Lee’s deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents and things. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.

BACKGROUND

This is a real property dispute. On November 9, 2022, plaintiffs Joy Yin and Ho Seong Lee (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against defendants Nicholas Simmons (Nicholas), Cathy Simmons (Cathy) (collectively, Moving Parties), Prager Metis, CPAs (Prager), Genitrix Georges (Georges), and Does 1 to 10. On September 29, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), alleging causes of action for injury to real property, breach of contract (Nicholas and Cathy Simmons), intentional misrepresentation/fraud, breach of contract (Georges/Prager Metis), and trespass. After the Court sustained a demurrer and granted a motion to strike to the SAC, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (TAC) alleging the same causes of action.

On March 7, 2025, Prager Metis moved to quash a deposition subpoena. On April 3, 2025, Plaintiffs opposed the motion. On April 9, 2025, Prager Metis replied.

LEGAL STANDARD

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

DISCUSSION

Summary of Arguments

Prager Metis seeks to quash a subpoena Plaintiffs served on approximately February 13, 2025. Prager Metis contends the subpoena is facially defective by listing the wrong parties and the wrong case number. Prager Metis contends it is unclear if Plaintiffs have improperly directed the subpoena to Prager Metis or if Plaintiffs are attempting to serve the subpoena as a non-party in a different case. Prager Metis then contends it is improper to use deposition subpoenas against parties like Prager Metis. Prager Metis further contends the subpoena is moot due to Plaintiffs’ prior discovery requests and Prager Metis’ timely responses to same, and that the prior discovery requests covered the same subject matter as this subpoena.

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that they withdrew the motion and that they advised Prager Metis it was withdrawn. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that Plaintiffs issued the subpoena because Prager Metis demanded it, claiming that Prager Metis was prevented from responding to discovery because of an ethical rule that required a subpoena. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates there was an Informal Discovery Conference in which this issue was discussed, and that he contacted the process server to cancel the request, but the process advised it was already served. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates some back and forth conversations with Prager Metis’ counsel regarding the withdrawal of the subpoena, in which Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that the subpoena was withdrawn.

Analysis

The Court finds Prager Metis’ motion unavailing. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates that they withdrew the subpoena and that they advised Prager Metis’ counsel they withdrew the subpoena. (Kennedy Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Prager Metis does not dispute that they were advised of the withdrawal, but instead appear to take issue with how the withdrawal was effected and seek to add unnecessary steps to the process of withdrawal, such as requiring Plaintiffs’ counsel to obtain a declaration from the process server stating that Plaintiffs had advised the process server of the withdrawal. (See Reply, 4:4-5:6.) The Court finds such additional steps to be unnecessary, and notes that there is no formal or statutory process for withdrawing a subpoena. As such, a simple email or phone call indicating it is withdrawn would be sufficient. While it is unclear from Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration whether he notified the other parties’ counsel that the subpoena was withdrawn, that does not necessarily invalidate the withdrawal, especially since Prager Metis was to be the deponent. (See Kennedy Decl., ¶¶ 5-7; Gernhardt Decl., Ex. A.) Given Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of the subpoena, there is nothing left to quash. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions. The Court does not find Prager Metis filed this motion in bad faith or without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).) However, the Court notes that the motion could have been avoided had Prager Metis met and conferred with Plaintiffs prior to filing the motion as required by this Court’s rules and Code of Civil Procedure Section 2016.040. (See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.410; Naser v. Lakeridge Athletic Club (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 571, 578 ("[O]btaining business records through a deposition subpoena is a 'deposition' within the plain meaning of the Civil Discovery Act"). The Court admonishes the parties to review and comply with this Court’s rules going forward.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.