Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV47832, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV47832 Hearing Date: April 24, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendants Salvador Penatovar and
KS Trans Service’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena
for production of records is DENIED.
The request for sanctions is DENIED.
Legal Standard
When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a
witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or
other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon
motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose
personal records are sought, 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 and conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ. Proc. §
1987.1; Southern Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15
Cal.2d 206.)
The court
can compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena on such terms and conditions
as appropriate to protect parties or witnesses from “unreasonable or oppressive
demands”
including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the
person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might
reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or
facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the
subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible
evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)
Discussion
Defendants move to compel compliance with
their subpoena purportedly served on the Custodian of Records for Xaction
Sports Gear Inc. on April 14, 2022, for Plaintiff’s employment records.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff is claiming $500,000 in past
and future lost earnings allegedly arising out of the subject accident.
Absent access to the subpoenaed records, Defendants have no way of evaluating
the veracity of Plaintiff’s alleged damages and, therefore, cannot engage
in a good faith settlement discussion, develop a defense, or prepare for
trial. Defendants argue the instant motion is necessary because to date, Xaction
has refused to produce responsive documents to the Subpoena despite this
Court’s ruling on June 28, 2022 that, Defendants argue, said the documents are
discoverable by Defendants.
The
motion is denied for numerous reasons.
First,
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346 requires a motion to compel compliance
with a deposition subpoena to be personally served on the non-party whose
compliance is sought. The
exhibit attached to the declaration of defense counsel which includes the
subpoena does not include a proof of service indicating Xaction was personally
served with the subpoena.
Second, the motion has not been served on
Xaction.
Third, Defendants argue in the motion that
the subpoena issued on April 14, 2022, to Xaction seeks production
of the following documents, inter alia:
4.
PLAINTIFF’S salary, wages, compensation,
commissions, bonuses, other monies or remuneration arising out of her
employment, association or relationship with YOU; and
(Brinson Decl.,
Exh. A.) However, upon review of the subpoena, the Court notes that it also
seeks the production of the exact documents that this Court already ruled was
invasive of Plaintiff’s right to privacy in its June 28, 2022 minute order.
Additionally, Defendants incorrectly argue that the Court ordered the
production of items 4-5 of subpoena in its June 28, 2022 ruling, and that the
Court ruled those items were discoverable. The Court did not order the
production of those items, it merely did not quash the subpoena relating to
those items because Plaintiff’s motion to quash did not address them and
Plaintiff did not object to those items. The Court never analyzed whether those
items were discoverable. If Defendants only
seek the production of the documents in items 4 and 5 of their subpoena, they
must issue a new subpoena to Xaction, serve it on Xaction and Plaintiff, and if
Plaintiff objects, they may file a new motion to compel. However, here, as
Defendants have not provided any basis for the Court to reconsider its prior
order, the motion is DENIED.
Sanctions
It appears in the
notice of motion Defendants request sanctions pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010
and 2023.030 for alleged the misuse of discovery,
among other sections. The request is denied
for three reasons. First, in a recent case, City of Los Angeles v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, the
Court of appeal concluded that: "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the
trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.”
(Id.) Second, it
appears Defendants abandoned the request in their memorandum of points and
authorities. Third, in any event, Defendants are not entitled to any sanctions
here and there has been no misuse of discovery by Xaction.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel
compliance with subpoena for production of records is DENIED. The request for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.