Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2019-01069010, Date: 2022-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Defendant County of Orange (“Defendant COUNTY”) seeks to quash the Notice to Appear and Produce Documents at Trial (“Notice”) which was served on July 25, 2022 on counsel for Defendant Don Barnes (“BARNES”). 

Defendant COUNTY seeks to quash the Notice served on Defendant BARNES on the grounds any testimony by him would be irrelevant or cumulative because he has no personal knowledge regarding the facts of this case and is not in possession of any relevant documents. Defendant COUNTY contends that since BARNES is sued only in his official capacity Plaintiffs are required to show a compelling reason for his testimony; that requiring BARNES to testify at trial would disrupt his obligations to the public as Sheriff as well as disrupt the Sheriff Department’s operations; and that Plaintiff is required to state a proper showing as to why BARNES’ testimony is needed since Defendant COUNTY has moved to quash the Notice.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.1(a) states: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

“[T]he right to subpoena witnesses which is given to every defendant by the Constitution and laws of this state (Cal. Const., art. I, § 13; Pen. Code, § 686, subd. 3) does not authorize the indiscriminate use of the process of the court to call witnesses whose testimony could not possibly be received or which is grossly cumulative.” (People v. Fernandez (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 760, 769.)

Here, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant BARNES’ has relevant testimony in this action and that they intend to examine him as to the following: “standard operating procedures for deputies who are pursuing a potential suspect; policies and procedures concerning emergency pursuit operations; use of emergency lights and sirens when pursuing a suspect; the disciplinary process when a sheriff's deputy has been involved in a traffic collision; sheriff's deputy supervisor's training policies and procedures when driving in an automobile with a trainee; the Sheriff's Department's standard protocol for involving another law enforcement agency to investigate deputy involved automobile accidents, among other pertinent topics involving the Sheriff's Department.” (See Opposition, p. 3.)

This action, however, has nothing to do with a police pursuit, of a potential suspect, use of emergency lights and sirens in a pursuit operation, or an investigation of an accident by the Sheriff’s Department. Rather, this action involves a car accident that occurred on February 28, 2019 at a parking lot at Foothill Towne Center in Lake Forest when Plaintiff Chaya Prizer (“CHAYA”) was allegedly rear-ended by Defendant ELLIS who, in her capacity as an officer with the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, was operating the motor vehicle.

Further, as to the issues which Plaintiffs contend they seek to question BARNES about, Defendant COUNTY contends that Deputy Blackburn is a named witness who is equally knowledgeable as to the above issues and is infinitely more connected to, and knowledgeable, about these matters. In fact, Deputy Blackburn was with Defendant ELLIS at the time of the accident and was training ELLIS when the accident occurred. Defendant BARNES is sued only in his official capacity and has no personal knowledge of the facts involved in this action.

Defendant BARNES is in charge of the O.C. Sherriff’s Department which employs over 3,500 employees. Plaintiffs provide no facts to support their contention that BARNES’ testimony is essential in this action. Plaintiffs have not even sought Defendant BARNES’ deposition in this matter.

And, although Plaintiffs contend that Defendant COUNTY has listed BARNES as a witness in this trial, Defendant COUNTY contends this was a mistake and they will amend the witness list to remove BARNES from the witness list.

Accordingly, in light of the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Defendant BARNES can provide any relevant testimony that cannot be provided by another named witness in this action or that his testimony would not be commutative or redundant. The Motion is GRANTED.

Moving Party is to give notice.