Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV21243, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21243    Hearing Date: January 5, 2024    Dept: 30

GUZYALIYA MANNANOVA, AN INDIVIDUAL vs TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena for business records is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

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

Defendant moves to compel Planet Fitness’ compliance with a subpoena for Plaintiff’s records. (Mathis Decl., Exh. 2.) Plaintiff was served with the subpoena issued to Planet Fitness on July 28, 2023. Plaintiff objected to the subpoena on August 14, 2023, however Planet Fitness has never served an objection to Trader Joe’s subpoena, and neither Planet Fitness nor Plaintiff have filed a motion to quash.

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 requires a motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena to be personally served on the non-party whose compliance is sought. Defendant has filed proof of service indicating that personal service of the motion has been made upon Planet Fitness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1011 subd. (b); California Rule of Court, rule 3.1346.)

However, the Court notes that there is no proof of service of the attached subpoena purportedly served on Planet Fitness. Nor is there proof of service for the notice on the consumer. Thus, the motion cannot be granted.

Sanctions

Defendant requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, which states that the Court “may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2(a).)

As the motion was unsuccessful, the Court exercises its discretion to deny the request for sanctions.