Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 21STLC08897, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STLC08897 Hearing Date: December 15, 2022 Dept: 26
Kim v. Doe, et al.
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 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. The Motion initially came for
hearing on October 20, 2022, at which time the Court found that Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate proper service of the deposition subpoena or the
Motion on third-parties Ukani
Enterprise, Inc. and Ahemd Ukani (collectively, “Ukani”). (Minute
Order, 10/20/22.) The Court continued the matter to December 15, 2022 and
ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental papers correcting the defects by
December 1, 2022. (Ibid.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to correct
the defects might result in the Motion being denied. (Ibid.)
To date, no supplemental papers, nor opposition to the Motion,
have been filed.
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.)
As the Court previously ruled, Plaintiff 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.
The Court also found Plaintiff had 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
In light of the continued lack of proof of proper service of
the deposition subpoena and Motion papers, Plaintiff Jong Yun Kim’s Motion for
Order Compelling Response to Deposition
Subpoena for Production of Business Records is DENIED.
Court clerk to give notice.