Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV00967, Date: 2024-07-30 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 20STCV00967    Hearing Date: July 30, 2024    Dept: A

20STCV00967 Salvardor Garcia et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

Tuesday, July 30, 2024, at 8:30 a.m.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT AGAINST THIRD PARTY WITNESS, SEDGWICK, FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

I.        BACKGROUND      

       Plaintiffs, Salvador Garcia, Ana Maria Garcia, and Ana Morales (“Plaintiffs”), filed this action against Defendants, County of Los Angeles, Brian Ciscel, and Christian Hernandez (“Defendants”), for injuries ­­­sustained because of the death of their decedent, Pablo Garcia, who was fatally shot by Defendants on May 21, 2019.  Plaintiffs filed their complaint on January 9, 2020, alleging claims for (1) negligence, (2) assault and battery, (3) violations of Civil Code § 52.1, (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

       On July 29, 2021, the Hon. Thomas Long heard and granted Plaintiff’s first Pitchess motion on November 17, 2022, for discovery of the personnel and administrative records of deputies, Ciscel and Hernandez. On August 12, 2021, Judge Long ordered Defendants to produce certain personnel records of both deputies within 10 court days, subject to the court’s protective order of December 1, 2020. The court ordered the transcript sealed.

       On November 17, 2022, the Hon. Michael Shultz granted Plaintiffs’ Pitchess motion for discovery of Deputy Ciscel’s psychological evaluations, disability claims related to stress, anxiety, depression, or any other psychological issues; records of discussions pertaining to psychological issues that may be affecting his job performance; and any records of actions taken by the LASD in response to any psychological examination performed on Deputy Ciscel.

       On January 6, 2023, the Hon. Michael Shultz conducted the in chambers review of records required to be produced and granted the motion for disclosure of peace officer personnel records related to Defendant Deputy Sheriff, Brian Ciscel. Plaintiffs now make this motion for contempt against third party witness Sedgwick’s failure to produce the worker's compensation records of Brian Ciscel as ordered by Judge Shultz on January 6, 2023.

II.      ARGUMENTS

       Plaintiffs argue that they subpoenaed Sedgwick for the production of worker's compensation records of Brian Ciscel as ordered by the court. Sedgwick did not respond to the subpoena for over one year, and they did not respond to Plaintiffs’ numerous telephone calls regarding the subpoena. 

       Non-party witness, Sedgwick, argues that the subpoena served by Plaintiffs was defective on its face and failed to reach Sedgwick. Plaintiffs served the subpoena on County of Los Angeles c/o Sedgwick. Plaintiffs did not serve the witness, Sedgwick. Sedgwick did not have notice of the subpoena until Plaintiffs filed this motion. An OSC re contempt is improper under these circumstances.

       In reply, Plaintiffs argue they served Sedgwick’s agent for service of process, Trudy Desbiens, who was authorized to accept service at the designated address located at 2710 Gateway Oak Dr., Suite 150N in Sacramento with the court’s minute orders and a subpoena for records. Sedgwick did not challenge the subpoena until Plaintiffs filed this motion, which was served on Nicole Stauss, agent for service of process located at 2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150N in Sacramento on Jun 21, 2024. Defendant objected to the subpoena, which required Plaintiffs to again serve the subpoena on Rebecca Vant, Agent for Service at the same address, which address was provided by the County of Los Angeles and Deputy Brian Ciscel.

III.    DISCUSSION

       The court can compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena for the production of documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) The court has already ordered Sedgewick to produce the records. Plaintiffs personally served the subpoena on Trudy Desbians at the Sacramento address on February 8, 2023. (Plaintiff’s Ex. D.) Plaintiffs personally served the motion on Sedgwick’s agent, Nicole Stauss, at the same address on June 21, 2024.

       Plaintiffs have served subpoenas on Sedgewick’s authorized process server three times and have given notice of Judge Long’s order and this court’s order requiring production of records. Sedgwick’s contention that the subpoena is defective is without merit.