Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV16459, Date: 2023-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16459    Hearing Date: January 26, 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

            Plaintiff Michael John Centofanti (Plaintiff) moves to enforce a deposition subpoena Plaintiff served on Defendant Alisson Michelle Erdman (Defendant) ordering Lily Erdman (Deponent), who is Defendant’s daughter, as well as a percipient witness of the underlying accident, to appear for deposition.  Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in connection with the motion.  The motion is unopposed.

            Preliminarily, the Court notes that service of the subject deposition subpoena is defective.  Personal service of the subpoena is required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.220, subdivisions (b) - (c). 

            Here, Plaintiff served the subpoena on Deponent’s mother, electronically.  Accordingly, there are two issues with service: (1) the subpoena was served on Deponent’s mother rather than Deponent, and Plaintiff has failed to establish Defendant’s guardian ad litem status concerning Deponent; and (2) the subpoena was served electronically versus personally. 

            Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as procedurally defective.