Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 23STCV03201, Date: 2023-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV03201    Hearing Date: December 15, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ERMINE TAYMAZYAN, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

SUN REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 23STCV03201 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL, BILLING, AND RADIOLOGICAL RECORDS 

 

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

December 15, 2023 

 

Plaintiff, Ermine Taymazyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Sun Real Estate Investments, LLC (“Defendant”) and for injuries arising from a trip and fall on Defendant’s property.  

  

Plaintiff asserts that on September 19, 2023, Defendant issued subpoenas to fifteen of Plaintiff’s treating providers seeking medical, billing records, and radiological records concerning Plaintiff.  Plaintiff, at this time, moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that the subpoenas are overbroad.  Defendant opposes the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply.  

 

Plaintiff asserts she objected to the subpoenas and gave defense counsel until October 12, 2023 to withdraw the subpoenas. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to meet and confer, proposing limiting the time and scope of the subpoenas, and that she had no other option but to file the instant motion. 

 

In opposition, Defendant avers the subpoenas sought Plaintiff’s records from March 17, 2011 to  present. Plaintiff’s counsel’s October 12, 2023 email to defense counsel proposed limiting the subpoenas to 10 years prior to the date of the incident and to limit it to the injuries at issue, namely Plaintiff’s back and lower extremities. Plaintiff then filed her motion to quash on October 12, 2023 at 6:17 p.m., after having sent the email on October 12, 2023 at 1:37 p.m. Defense counsel declares they requested the subpoenas be withdrawn and re-issued the subpoenas limiting the scope to the 10 year period and limited to Plaintiff’s back and lower extremities on November 11, 2023. The subpoenas were re-issued on November 20, 2023 with the same language requested by Plaintiff’s counsel. 

 

Plaintiff’s reply, declaration attached thereto, and proof of service are unsigned in its entirety. Therefore, the Court will not consider the defective reply.  

 

Although there is no requirement that a motion to quash a subpoena contain a meet and confer declaration (CCP §1987.1), it appears that a proper meet and confer would have mooted the issue prior to Plaintiff bringing the motion. The Court finds the issue now moot, considering Defendant has withdrawn the subpoenas at issue and complied with Plaintiff’s scope of limitation request. 

 

 Moving party is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 14th day of December 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court