Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV06759, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV06759    Hearing Date: December 14, 2022    Dept: 29

Legal Standard 

1.     The Court may order a nonparty deponent to answer questions and produce documents at deposition.

               Under CCP § 1987.1(a):

               “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…may make        an order…directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court           shall declare….”

               Further, under CCP § 2025.480(a):

               “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document,                electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent's control               that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking        discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

2.     Defendant properly served the subpoena as shown by the proof of service.

               Under CCP § 2020.220(c), personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.

Discussion 

               Here, the subpoena requires production of business records, specifically medical records concerning Plaintiff’s injuries that Plaintiff placed at issue in her response to Defendant’s form interrogatories, set one. (Declaration of Patel ¶¶  4-5; Exhibit “A” and “B”.) According to Defendant’s counsel, deponent failed to produce these records despite “numerous attempts” by ABI Document Support Services, the service used by counsel’s office to obtain documents pursuant to subpoena. (Declaration of Patel ¶¶ 7-8.) Further, Defendant personally served the subpoena on Mrs. Toma at 8780 Van Nuys Boulevard, Panorama City, California on March 10, 2022, and Defendant attached the proof of service as Exhibit “C” to this motion. Plaintiff has not objected the subpoena or the motion. (Declaration of Patel ¶ 6; Exhibit “C”.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to comply with its discovery obligation and, accordingly, grants Defendant’s motion to compel compliance.

Conclusion 

               Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on Nader F. Amanious, M.D. is GRANTED.

               Moving party is ordered to give notice.