Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 21STCV27500, Date: 2023-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV27500    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 30

AMANDA STEPHENSON STEWART vs CIK POWER DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoena for business records is GRANTED.

Background

This case arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred on June 25, 2021, between Plaintiff Amanda Stephenson Stewart and Defendant Jerry Rosas. Defendant CIK Power Distributors owned the vehicle Defendant Rosas operated. On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On September 26, 2023, Defendants filed this motion to compel compliance with a subpoena for production of business records. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)

The court can compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena on such terms and conditions as appropriate to protect parties or witnesses from “unreasonable or oppressive demands” including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)

Discussion

Defendants move to compel the Custodian of Records of Illuminated Path’s compliance with their subpoena for Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and x-ray records from June 25, 2021 to the present. As a result of the accident underlying this matter, Plaintiff sought medical care and treatment with Dr. Shadi Souferian, who is affiliated with Illuminated Path, for her alleged injuries. (Kahn Decl., Exh B.) Defendants served a Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records on Illuminate Path’s Custodian of Records on May 22, 2023 for the medical records of Plaintiff. (Id., Exhs. C-D.) No party has objected to the subpoena. No records were produced.

Here, the Court notes, though, that according to the proof of service attached as exhibits C and D to Defendants’ motion, the deposition subpoena was issued and served on the Custodian of Records for Illuminated Path, and a Notice to Consumer was served on Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, objecting to the deposition. As such, the motion is GRANTED.