Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 18STCV00932, Date: 2022-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV00932    Hearing Date: December 16, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 16, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena

Moving Party: Plaintiff B&S Property Management, LLC

Responding Party: Third-Party Transdev Rail, Inc.

T/R:    PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

UPON PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUBPOENA, THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO MEET AND CONFER ON A MUTALLY AGREEABLE DATE FOR PMK DEPOSITION TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THE NOTICE.

            PLAINTIFF to notice. 

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs B&S Property Management, LLC and French Fabric sued Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, asserting one cause of action for negligence/dangerous condition of property. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant owned a property adjacent to Plaintiff’s property, which contained a homeless encampment in the alley. Plaintiffs allege that a fire started in the encampment on Defendant’s property and spread to Plaintiffs’ property, causing damage.

ANALYSIS

CCP § 1987.1 provides, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.”

            Plaintiff moves to enforce a subpoena served on Veolia Transportation Maintenance and Infrastructure, Inc. aka Transdev Rail, Inc. on September 30, 2022. Plaintiff asserts that VTMI contracted with Metrolink to maintain outside areas relevant to this action. The subpoena seeks documents and VTMI’s person most knowledgeable for deposition.

Plaintiff’s counsel contacted VTMI/Transdev’s counsel the day before the deposition to inquire if anyone would attend. VTMI/Transdev’s counsel responded by objecting to the subpoena on the grounds it was not served on a person authorized to accept service, and that VTMI no longer exists. After some discussion, VTMI/Transdev’s counsel indicated he would confer with his client to determine a date for a PMK deposition. Plaintiff asserts counsel never provided a date.

            In opposition, Transdev Rail asserts that the motion should be denied because the subpoenas were not served on an individual authorized to accept service. In reply, Plaintiff asserts Transdev’s challenge to service is in bad faith because they previously agreed to provide dates for deposition. Plaintiff also emphasizes that Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ MSJ is due on December 23, 2022.

            As Plaintiff has failed to properly affect service, the Court cannot enforce the instant subpoena through a motion. But the parties should work this out. Plaintiff may serve the subpoena again. Upon effective service, the parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith on a deposition date within 7 days of the notice.

            Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.