Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV16459, Date: 2023-03-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV16459    Hearing Date: March 1, 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 subpoena for production of documents served on the Law Offices of Keevil Markham (Deponent), Defendant Allison Michelle Erdman’s counsel of record.  Deponent has not filed an opposition.  

Preliminarily, the Court notes that “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail at an address specified on the deposition record.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)

Here, Plaintiff advanced a proof of service demonstrating that Deponent was served with the moving papers electronically. (Plaintiff’s Motion, pp. 24-25.)  But Plaintiff has failed to advance a declaration or stipulation whereby Deponent agreed to accept service of the moving papers electronically.

Accordingly, the Court finds the service of the moving papers to be procedurally defective and denies the motion on such grounds.

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling.