Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV49566, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 20STCV49566    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

Hossein Nadjar,

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

20STCV49566

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

 

Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc.,

 

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: January 30, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena for Business Records

Moving Party: Defendant Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc.

Responding Party: None

 

T/R:    DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA IS GRANTED.

 

THE CAR EXCHANGE IS ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA WITHIN 15 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

 

            DEFENDANT 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. No opposition has been received.

           

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.”

            Defendant moves to enforce a subpoena served on third-party The Car Exchange on February 4, 2022. The subpoena seeks information relating to Plaintiff’s sales of used cars to The Car Exchange while Plaintiff was employed by Defendant car-dealership. Defendant asserts Plaintiff would sell cars to The Car Exchange at below market value to the detriment of Defendant. The records are relevant and discoverable. Neither The Car Exchange nor Plaintiff has opposed this motion.

            Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions.