Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV25376, Date: 2023-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25376    Hearing Date: January 3, 2023    Dept: 29

Matthew Chavez v. Andrew James Leonette 

 

Tuesday, January 3, 2023

 

 

 

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV25376

 

[UNOPPOSED] 

Shape 

 

Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Business Records and Request for Monetary Sanctions filed by Defendants Andrew James Leonette and City of Whittier  

Shape 

 

Background 

 

On July 9, 2021, Plaintiffs Matthew Chavez and Annalise Arzola filed this action against Defendants City of Whittier, California Highway Patrol, and Andrew James Leonette for motor vehicle and general negligence, stemming from a vehicle collision that occurred on July 12, 2020, between Plaintiffs and Defendant Leonette, who was operating the vehicle in the course and scope of employment as a police officer for the City.

 

On June 9, 2022, Defendants Leonette and the City of Whitter filed this instant motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records. No opposition has been filed.

 

Summary 

 

 

Moving Arguments 

Defendant moves for a court order pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, directing All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. to comply with its deposition subpoena for Plaintiff Chavez’s medical records.  Neither All-Pro nor Plaintiff has objected or moved to quash the subpoena and All-Pro has not complied with the subpoena. Defendant also seeks sanctions in the amount of $3,470.

 

Opposing Arguments 

 

 None filed.

 

Reply Arguments 

 

None filed. 

 

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 

Defendants move for a court order pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, directing All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. to comply with its deposition subpoena for Plaintiff Chavez’s medical records.  Neither All-Pro nor Plaintiff has objected or moved to quash the subpoena and All-Pro has not complied with the subpoena.

On December 13, 2021, the City issued the Subpoena to All-Pro. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7;  Exh. A; Arredondo Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Despite numerous attempts to obtain plaintiff’s records from this facility, All-Pro has not complied with the Subpoena. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 8-11; Exh. B; Fryar-Kent Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A-B; Arredondo Decl., ¶ 9; Exh. C.)

The Court finds that Defendant properly served a deposition subpoena on non-party All-Pro to produce records. Defendant seeks documents relating to Plaintiff’s medical records due to his claimed injuries sustained in the vehicle collision at issue in this case. There is no objection to this motion. As such, the motion is granted. All-Pro is ordered to produce the records sought within 30 days of this order.

            Sanctions

Except as specified in subdivision (c), 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.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).  

 

Defendants also seek sanctions against All-Pro. The Court finds sanctions are warranted as there has been no response to the subpoena and no justification as an opposition ahs not been filed nor an objection made to the subpoena. However, the Court will reduce the amount in sanctions sought due to the simplicity of the motion and because it is unopposed. Thus, All-Pro is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 ($220 per hour for 3 hours) within 30 days of this order.

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Nonparty All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. is ordered to pay Defendants monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 within 30 days of this order.

TENTATIVE 

 

Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Nonparty All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. is ordered to pay Defendants monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 within 30 days of this order.

 

 

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 

Defendants move for a court order pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, directing All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. to comply with its deposition subpoena for Plaintiff Chavez’s medical records.  Neither All-Pro nor Plaintiff has objected or moved to quash the subpoena and All-Pro has not complied with the subpoena.

On December 13, 2021, the City issued the Subpoena to All-Pro. (Lopez Decl., ¶ 7;  Exh. A; Arredondo Decl., ¶ 5; Exh. B.) Despite numerous attempts to obtain plaintiff’s records from this facility, All-Pro has not complied with the Subpoena. (Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 8-11; Exh. B; Fryar-Kent Decl., ¶¶ 3-6; Exhs. A-B; Arredondo Decl., ¶ 9; Exh. C.)

The Court finds that Defendant properly served a deposition subpoena on non-party All-Pro to produce records. Defendant seeks documents relating to Plaintiff’s medical records due to his claimed injuries sustained in the vehicle collision at issue in this case. There is no objection to this motion. As such, the motion is granted. All-Pro is ordered to produce the records sought within 30 days of this order.

            Sanctions

Except as specified in subdivision (c), 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.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).  

 

Defendants also seek sanctions against All-Pro. The Court finds sanctions are warranted as there has been no response to the subpoena and no justification as an opposition ahs not been filed nor an objection made to the subpoena. However, the Court will reduce the amount in sanctions sought due to the simplicity of the motion and because it is unopposed. Thus, All-Pro is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 ($220 per hour for 3 hours) within 30 days of this order.

 

Conclusion

 

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED. Nonparty All-Pro Medical Group, Inc. is ordered to pay Defendants monetary sanctions in the amount of $660 within 30 days of this order.

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.