Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00846, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV00846 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Apel v. Farmers
Insurance Exchange
CASE NO.: 24SMCV00846
MOTION: Motion
to Compel Compliance with Subpoena
HEARING DATE: 3/25/2025
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).)
Analysis
Defendant Farmers Insurance
Exchange moves to compel third party Dura-Glo Collision Center to comply with a
subpoena for the production of relevant business records in this matter, and
for sanctions in the amount of $1,366.65 against Dura-Glo.
Defendant demonstrates good cause for the
production of documents. The underlying action arises from an alleged bad faith
vehicle insurance denial. There is a dispute over whether fees charged for
storage of Plaintiff’s vehicle are attributable to the claimed loss as damages.
Plaintiff identified Dura-Glo Collision Center as the relevant storage
facility. (McKeon Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. F [approx. $62,500, based on storage charges
of $250 per day for 277 days].)
On October 22, 2024, Defendant
cause the deposition subpoena for production of business records to be served
on the custodian of records for Dura-Glo via Frankie Meza, Dura-Glo’s manager.
(McKeon Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. E.) On December 27, 2024, counsel for Defendant sent a
meet and confer letter to Dura-Glo advising it of its legal obligation to
comply with the subpoena and demanding production of the requested business
records by January 10, 2025. (McKeon Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. H.) Dura-Glo failed to
respond. (McKeon Decl., ¶ 12.) As of January 22, 2025, Dura-Glo still has not
produced the requested business records or provided any form of response.
Sanctions are mandatory unless the
court finds that Dura-Glo “acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (CCP § 2025.480(j).)
Dura Glo failed to oppose and therefore failed to justify its non-response.
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.
Sanctions are imposed against Dura-Glo in the reasonable amount of $866.65. Sanctions
are to be paid within 30 days.