Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01672, Date: 2024-11-25 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 23PSCV01672    Hearing Date: November 25, 2024    Dept: G

Defendant Tae San International, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative, For a Protective Order and Request for Monetary Sanctions

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Tae San International, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is GRANTED and Request for Monetary Sanctions is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision. In December 2021, Plaintiff Mirna Angelica Solorzano was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Defendant John Doe on Philadelphia Street in Pomona.

On June 5, 2023, Solorzano filed a complaint against Doe; Tae San International, Inc. (Tae San), doing business as KJ Carpet; and Does 1-50, alleging a cause of action for negligence.

On November 27, 2023, Tae San filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) total or partial equitable indemnity, (2) contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.

On February 21, 2024, Solorzano amended the Complaint to replace Doe 1 with Defendant Jesus Moreno.

On May 6, 2024, Solorzano dismissed Moreno from the present action.

On October 24, 2024, Tae San filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for November 25, 2024, along with a mandatory settlement conference on March 13, 2025, and a case management conference/trial setting conference on March 27, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Tae San moves to quash Solorzano’s deposition subpoena to Marco Martinez, Tae San’s insurance claims adjustor. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Tae San’s motion.

Legal Standard

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 such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Discussion

In this case, Solorzano has sought to depose Tae San’s insurance claims adjustor and demanded production of the claims file for the collision at issue in this action. (Campo Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. A.) In moving to quash the deposition subpoena, Tae San argues it is harassing and oppressive because it seeks documents available from other sources and is overbroad. Tae San also argues it seeks information protected by attorney-client privilege and Insurance Code section 791.13. In response, Solorzano failed to file any timely opposition to this motion. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Tae San’s motion.

Tae San also seeks the award of sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2. Pursuant to this provision, “in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Here, the court declines to award such sanctions as Solorzano did not oppose the present motion. The court also declines to award sanctions requested pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Tae San’s motion to quash Solorzano’s deposition subpoena is GRANTED.