Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 23SMCP00223, Date: 2024-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCP00223    Hearing Date: August 8, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Sosnicki, et al., v. Windsor Palm Valley LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:                23SMCP00223

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel

HEARING DATE:   8/8/2024

Legal Standard

Personal service of a deposition subpoena obligates the production of whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena and to appear in any proceedings to enforce discovery. (CCP § 2020.220(c).) If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order pursuant to CCP section 1987.1 compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (CCP § 2025.480(b); see also UnzippedApparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2025.480(b).)

A motion to compel production of documents described in a deposition notice must be accompanied by a showing of good cause. (CCP § 2025.450(b)(1).) In other words, the moving party must provide declarations containing specific facts justifying inspection of the documents described in the notice.  

The motion to compel must be “made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).) This time limit also applies to motions based on a deposition subpoena for production of documents or a business records subpoena. The 60-day time limit runs from the date objections are served because the deposition record is then complete. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192.) 

Analysis

Plaintiff Dorothy Sosnicki moves to compel third-party BMO Bank, N.A. (“BMO”) to comply with the subject Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records.  BMO does not oppose.

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff served the Subpoena on BMO with a requested production date of May 8, 2024. (Matthews Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) Despite Plaintiff’s good faith attempt to meet and confer, BMO failed to produce a single document. (¶¶ 4, 6.) Plaintiff shows good cause for production. This action regards enforcement of a sister-state judgment. BMO possesses records relating to the deposit accounts of judgment debtor S&F Management Company, LLC. (¶ 4.) Plaintiff needs documents related to the assets of S&F Management Company to enforce the judgment.

Plaintiff demonstrates that they incurred $2,287.50 of reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees in making this motion. Plaintiff explains that this encompasses 2.5 hours preparing the moving papers and an anticipated 2 hours preparing a Reply and appearing at the hearing on the motion, with a filing fee of $60.00. BMO did not oppose the motion, and thus, there was no reply. Accordingly, the court will award sanctions in the reduced total amount of $1,792.50, inclusive of costs.

            Accordingly, the motion to compel is GRANTED. BMO must comply with the subpoena within 10 days. Sanctions are imposed against BMO in the amount of $1,792.50. Sanctions are to be paid to counsel within 30 days.