Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV22904, Date: 2023-11-09 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at SSCdept30@LACourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 20STCV22904 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 30
CLAUDE LAVOIE, et al. vs SANDRA SARNOFF, et al.
TENTATIVE
The Motion for Order Compelling Superior Court Judge to Execute Subpoenas as to Veterans Affairs is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.
Discussion
Defendant moves “for [an] Order Compelling [the] Superior Court Judge to Execute Subpoenas as to Veterans Affairs.” Defendant has attempted to obtain the specific authorization used by the VA from Plaintiff, to no avail. The VA will accept a judge signed subpoena to obtain records and as such, Defendant requests that the Court execute the subpoena, attached as Exhibit A.
In support of this motion, Defendant cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985(c), which states: “The clerk, or a judge, shall issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service.” However, this section appears to apply to a sealed subpoena, which is not the case here. As such, Defendant has not provided any authority for this motion. There is ample California appellate authority holding that the trial court does not have the power to create additional methods of discovery. (See, e.g., San Diego Unified Port Dist. V. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1405.)
The court does have authority to compel a non-party’s compliance with a proper deposition subpoena for records. “The party requesting a consumer’s personal records may bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to enforce the subpoena within 20 days of service of the written objection.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).) Where a subpoena requires production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things, the court 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. Defendant may bring a motion to compel compliance after personally serving the deposition subpoena on the VA Hospital, and personally serving any motion on the VA Hospital.