Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV34670, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV34670    Hearing Date: April 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 Carmeletta Mobley (Plaintiff) sued Defendant Ross Dress for Less, Inc. (Defendant) based on an incident in which Plaintiff struck her head on a display rod in Defendant’s retail store.  Plaintiff moves to modify subpoenas issued by Defendant.  Defendant opposes the motion. 

            Preliminarily, the Court notes Plaintiff moves to quash under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, section 372.2, subsection (g), which, as Defendant notes in its opposition, is part of the statutory scheme for the California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board, and is thus inapplicable.

            Further, Plaintiff has not filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion as is required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1112, and has failed to advance evidence establishing how and why the subpoenas should be either modified or quashed.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(b).)

            Finally, Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, which requires “[a]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request  . . . be accompanied by a separate statement.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a).)  This includes a motion “[t]o compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5).)  The Court finds that Plaintiff has not filed a separate statement in compliance with Rule 3.1345. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion as procedurally defective.   Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.