Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: SC126845, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC126845    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: R

It appears that the parties have not worked this out.

Thus, the Court will order the following.  Hohman will produce the seven categories of documents plaintiff’s counsel set forth in his declaration today.  It appears reasonable.  They will be provided to plaintiff by 5:00 pm.  Hohman will state under oath that she has complied.  If she does not have any a particular document, she will provide a response similar to that required by 2031.230 and it, too, will be under oath and detailed.  The Court needs to figure out the jurisdictional issue.  If there is no jurisdiction, then so be it.  The subpoena will be quashed.  If Ms. Hohman elects to appear and testify voluntarily and thereby submit to the Court’s jurisdiction for trial testimonial purposes, the Court will discuss, before she is allowed to testify, what, if any, documents she will need to produce and the contours of that testimony.  But if not, then she need not appear to testify (live or remote) and she need not produce financial documents.  Ms. Hohman’s failure to comply with this order will be viewed by the Court, potentially, as sanctionable (after all, the Court has general jurisdiction over her in this case) and may cause the Court to question her credibility and conclude that in fact she was a California resident at the time the subpoena was served.  Frankly, the Court is getting a little bit tired of Hohman’s disregard for this case and refusal to work even with her own counsel to allow the meet and confer process to go forward.  (In this regard, the Court will credit Mr. Vivoli’s statements that part of the problem is that he has trouble communicating with Hohman, to the lack of communication is not his fault, but that of Hohman.)

If Ms. Hohman wants to work something out with plaintiff, she will need to withdraw her objection to the subpoena in return for an agreement.  The Court can discuss that further if necessary.

Upon receipt of the foregoing material, plaintiff should determine whether: (1) it agrees that there is no jurisdiction for the Court to enforce the trial subpoena under CCP 1989 because Hohman was not a California resident at the time the subpoena was served; or (2) why the Court should conclude that the subpoena can be enforced in light of the Hohman declaration previously provided and the documents about to be provided.  That brief should be filed no later than Friday afternoon at 4:00 pm.  A courtesy copy should be delivered to the Court.  There will be no reply.  If plaintiff chooses the second option, the Court will hear argument at 9:00 am on Wednesday, November 2, 2022.