Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 19STCV20201, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20201    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Reyna Ventura (Plaintiff) sued Defendant La Luna Lavanderia, Inc. (Defendant) based on a slip and fall incident.  Plaintiff moves for an order quashing the subpoena for production of medical records to Kaiser Permanente, served by Defendant.  Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions.  Defendant opposes the motion.  Plaintiff replies.

ANALYSIS

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)  

            Plaintiff contends the Court must quash the subject subpoena because its production date is November 10, 2022, which is after the non-expert discovery cut-off.  As such, Plaintiff concludes that Defendant’s subpoena is defective and in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020.  In opposition, Defendant notes the Court has discretion to grant leave to reopen discovery under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050 and argues it should do so here based on Plaintiff’s alleged withholding of pertinent information regarding Plaintiff’s future medical treatment.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020 provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (a).)  “Except as provided in Section 2024.050, a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2024.020, subd. (b).)   

Here, the discovery and motion cutoff dates remain based on the initial trial date of December 5, 2022.  (See November 17, 2022 Stipulation.)  In its November 17, 2022 order, pursuant to the stipulation submitted by Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court continued the trial from December 5, 2022 to April 24, 2023.  Though the Court reserved Defendant’s right to bring a motion to reopen discovery, it did not continue the discovery cutoff dates in accordance with the new trial date.  (See November 17, 2022 Stipulation.)

Accordingly, the discovery cut-off date remains November 4, 2022, and Defendant did not schedule the production date of the subject subpoena until November 10, 2022.  As Defendant has sought to obtain records from Kaiser Permanente after the discovery cut-off, the Court finds Defendant’s subpoena to be improper.

Both parties seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The Court declines to impose sanctions on either party as it finds an award of sanctions to either party to be unjust in this instance.  The Court finds the parties had a good faith dispute as to the propriety of the subject subpoena, and neither party has acted in bad faith.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subject subpoena which seeks to propound records from Kaiser Permanente.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.