Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC01424, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01424    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: 26

Troshchiy v. Gentle, et al.

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
(CCP § 1985.3, 1987.1)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Non-Party Michael L. Coates’ Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Olga N. Troshchiy (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for interpleader against Defendants Ian Gentle, Imekhi Gentle (“the Gentle Defendants”), and Dr. Kevin E. Martin (“Defendant Martin”) on February 18, 2021. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff represented the Gentle defendants in a personal injury action that ultimately settled. (Compl., ¶¶6-8.) However, an alleged dispute over the distribution of the settlement funds has arisen between the Gentle Defendants and Defendant Martin that Plaintiff is unable to resolve. (Id. at ¶¶11-17.) Plaintiff brings the instant action to interplead the settlement funds and allow Defendants to resolve the dispute between themselves. (Id. at p. 4:1-10.)

Defendant Martin filed an Answer on March 25, 2021 and the Gentle Defendants answered on July 16, 2021. The parties stipulated to continue the trial date to from September 28, 2022 to February 15, 2023. (Stip and Order, 09/22/22.) Trial was then continued again multiple times and is currently scheduled for April 25, 2023.

Non-party Michael L. Coates (“Coates”), attorney for Defendant Martin, filed the instant motion to quash subpoena duces tecum and request for monetary sanctions on January 12, 2023. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Trial in this action was currently set for April 25, 2023, making the corresponding cutoffs for discovery and discovery motions, March 26, 2023 and April 10, 2023, respectively. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).) The instant motion to quash and for monetary sanctions, therefore, is set to be heard after the statutory cutoff for discovery motions.

The Court cannot grant discovery motions after the cutoff date unless the moving party has moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 to have the motions heard closer to the trial date. (Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586-1587.) The Court’s discretion in allowing the motions to be heard closer to the trial date than allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 is bounded by the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050, which include submission of a meet and confer declaration and the trial court’s consideration of the statutory factors. (Ibid.) In other words, it would be an abuse of discretion for the Court to grant this motion without evidence of the required meet and confer and without considering the statutory factors for the continuance. No meet and confer regarding a trial continuance is in the record, nor is there any discussion of such factors in the motion.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Non-Party Michael L. Coates’ Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.