Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV00584, Date: 2022-09-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV00584 Hearing Date: September 6, 2022 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendant City of Redondo Beach’s
motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for business records is
DENIED.
Legal Standard
A party seeking discovery form a person who is not a party to the
action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or
deposition for production of business records. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §
2020.010. A deposition subpoena may command: (1) only the attendance and
testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for
copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony of the deponent, as well as the
production of business records, other documents, electronically stored information,
and tangible things. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020. 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. Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).
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.” Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1.
“When a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or
the production of books, documents 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 the party, the witness, or any consumer described in
Section 1985.3, 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 such 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 parties, the witness, or the consumer from unreasonable or oppressive
demands including unreasonable violations of a witness's or consumer's right of
privacy. Nothing herein shall require any witness or party to move to quash,
modify, or condition any subpoena duces tecum of personal records of any
consumer served under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1985.3.” Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1, § 2020.240.
Discussion
Defendant moves for a court order pursuant to
Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, directing McCormick Ambulance
(McCormick) to comply with its deposition subpoena for Decedent’s medical
records. Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not object or move to quash the
subpoena and McCormick has not complied with the subpoena. Defendant also seeks
sanctions in the amount of $900 against McCormick for its failure to comply
with the subpoena.
On November 17, 2021, the City issued the
subject deposition subpoena for the production of business records to McCormick,
seeking all medical and billing records with respect to the facility’s
treatment of decedent. (Declaration of Chi K. Tran, ¶ 4, Exh. B.) The City set
a production date of December 17, 2021. (Id.) The Subpoena, including
the Notice to Consumer under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3,
were served on plaintiff and McCormick. (Tran, Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Plaintiff
did not object or move to quash the subpoena. (Id., ¶ 5.)
However, the proof
of service attached to the deposition subpoena addressed to non-party McCormick
is blank. (See Exh. B, pg. 2.) Although McCormick was served with notice of
this motion, there is no proof of service indicating it was served with the subpoena
at issue. As such, the motion cannot be granted.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to compel
compliance with subpoena for production of business records is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.