Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV31534, Date: 2024-04-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV31534    Hearing Date: April 22, 2024    Dept: 30

TABORA WARD, JR., et al. vs DAVID ESCALANTE MELQUISEDEC

TENTATIVE

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena for business records is DENIED without prejudice. Moving party to give notice.

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 T-Mobile’s compliance with a subpoena for Plaintiff’s Chanice’s phone records. On November 1, 2023, Defendant served a deposition subpoena for production of business records on T-Mobile. On or around December 29, 2023, the Custodian of Record served Defendant an objection. (Goodwin Decl., Exh. C.) These records are material to determine Chanice Ward’s communications and location at the time of the incident in order to corroborate Defendant’s contention that she was not present inside the vehicle and was called to the scene by Tambora Ward after the loss occurred.

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 service of the motion has been made upon T-Mobile via email and mail, but not personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1011 subd. (b); California Rule of Court, rule 3.1346.)

Additionally, the Court notes that there is no proof of service of the attached subpoena served on T-Mobile. Thus, the motion cannot be granted.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena for business records is DENIED without prejudice.