Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08897, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC08897    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 26

MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

(CCP § 1987.1, 2020.410)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jong Yun Kim’s Motion for Order Compelling Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY DECEMBER 1, 2022, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED HEREIN. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

ANALYSIS:  

On December 15, 2021, Plaintiff Jong Yun Kim (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Jane Doe (“Defendant”). Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order Compelling Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records on August 4, 2022. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling third-parties Ukani Enterprise, Inc. and Ahemd Ukani (collectively, “Ukani”) to produce business records in response to a deposition subpoena. The Motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, which states in relevant part: “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents . . . the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b) . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Plaintiff, however, has failed to demonstrate proper service of the deposition subpoena on Ukani. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.220, the deposition subpoena is to be personally served “to any officer, director, custodian of records, or to any agent or employee authorized by the organization to accept service of a subpoena.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b)(2).) The supporting declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel includes a proof of personal service that is not filled out. (Motion, Kim Decl., Exh. B, p. 4.) It also includes a completed proof of service by mailing, dated March 16, 2022. (Id. at p. 5.) Service by mail does not meet the statutory requirements.

Also, Plaintiff has not demonstrated proper service of the instant Motion on Ukani. Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1346 states: “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail at an address specified on the deposition record.” Here, the proof of service of the Motion only indicates that it was served on Ukani by mail. (Motion, Proof of Service.)

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Jong Yun Kim’s Motion for Order Compelling Response to Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 15, 2022 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY DECEMBER 1, 2022, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS CORRECTING THE DEFECTS NOTED HEREIN. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.