Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV11504, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11504    Hearing Date: August 5, 2022    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

            Defendants Azatuhi Nersisyan, Hayrapet Ayvazyan, and Andranik Ayvazyan (collectively, “Defendants”) move to enforce a deposition subpoena Defendants served on Glendale Diagnostic Imaging Network, Inc. (“Deponent”), from whom plaintiff Katherine Eugenia Avila Galicia sought treatment and care in connection with her claimed injuries in this case.  Defendants seek monetary sanctions.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure section 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 [a party or a witness] . . . may make an order . . . directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Here, the subject deposition subpoena seeks (1) “[c]omplete documents, pertaining to the neck, back, head, upper and lower extremities, chest, and abdomen, from 05/19/2010 to the present;” (2) all documents relating to the contractual relationship between a third-party purchaser of any medical liens; and (3) all documents regarding any compensation received and/or to be received, all in connection to Deponent’s treatment of Plaintiff.  (Declaration of Christopher Babadjanian, Exhibit C.) 

Defendants served the notice to consumer or employee upon Plaintiff on December 3, 2021, by mail.  After receiving no objection from Plaintiff, Defendants personally served the subject subpoena upon Deponent on December 14, 2021.  Defendants noticed Deponent’s deposition/production of records for examination for December 29, 2021.  As of the filing date of the motion, Defendants have not received the records responsive to the deposition subpoena from Deponent.  Accordingly, the Court finds Deponent has failed to comply with the deposition subpoena.  

Defendants seek monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  In ruling on a motion to compel, “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).)  Thus, the Court will impose monetary sanctions against Deponent in the amount of $700.68, which represents four hours of attorney time to prepare the motion and attend the hearing at $160.17 per hour, plus the filing fee of $60. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to compel Deponent’s compliance with the deposition subpoena, and orders Deponent to produce the records responsive to the deposition subpoena to the deposition officer identified in the subpoena within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders, unless Defendants stipulate otherwise.

Further, the Court orders Deponent to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $700.68 to Defendants, by and through counsel for Defendants, within 30 days of notice of the Court’s orders.

Defendants shall give notice of the Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.