Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV01447, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01447    Hearing Date: March 27, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Justin Charles Johnson v. Miguel Angel Rodriguez Jr., et al. 

Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoenas for Production of Business Records 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court summarily DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoenas for production of business records without prejudice. 

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

BACKGROUND 

This is a personal injury action. On May 12, 2023, plaintiff Justin Charles Johnson (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Miguel Angel Rodriguez, Jr. (Rodriguez), Golden Moving Enterprise LLC (Golden Moving) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for negligence and negligence per se. 

On March 3, 2025, Defendants moved to compel compliance with subpoenas for production of business records. On March 13, 2025, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On March 20, 2025, Defendants 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).) 

            “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (a).) 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES 

            The Court notes that Plaintiff’s opposition is 11 pages long, but contains no table of contents or table of authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (f).) The Court admonishes Plaintiff to comply with the California Rules of Court going forward. 

DISCUSSION 

            “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, italics added.) “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (c), italics added.) 

            The Court notes that the proof of service attached to the motion does not indicate service of the motion on any of the approximately 28 non-party deponents who are the subjects of the various subpoenas at issue here. (Notice and Motion, pp. 2, 334-335 of pdf.) The Court records also do not indicate service of the motion on any of the non-party deponents. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion, and on that basis summarily DENIES the motion. (See Harris v. Board of Ed. of City and County of San Francisco (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 677, 680 [courts lack jurisdiction to rule on motions where requisite notice is not given].) 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court summarily DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoenas for production of business records without prejudice. 

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