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.