Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV18005, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22STCV18005    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

William Cinnamon III,

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

22STCV18005

 

vs.

 

 

Tentative Ruling

 

 

 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.,

 

 

 

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date: February 2, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena for Business Records

Moving Party: Defendant American Honda Motor, Co., Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff William Cinnamon III

 

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

 

REGAL REPAIR IS ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION AND PRODUCE DOCUMENTS WITHIN 10 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, opposition, and reply.

 

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 Regal Repair on November 14, 2023. Defendant seeks documents and deposition testimony related to repairs on the subject vehicle that may have been caused by an accident. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts the subpoena seeks private financial documents that are irrelevant to the action.

As this action arises from the condition of Plaintiff’s vehicle, documents showing damage and repairs to the vehicle are plainly relevant. Any privacy interests are outweighed by the need for discovery.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.