Judge: Shirley K. Watkins, Case: 20VECV00828, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling
If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.
Case Number: 20VECV00828 Hearing Date: August 16, 2022 Dept: T
Tentative rulings:
Motion to Quash subpoenas for business records of defendant: GRANTED. The subpoenas are quashed. These are the same records that the court has already considered as part of prior discovery motions and the court has already ruled on these documents. There is no authority to seek the same records again from the defendant by subpoenas. Moreover, the subpoenas were issued by the plaintiff in pro per. Subpoenas may only be issued by the court or by an attorney. The subpoenas are ineffective. Ms. Weischadle designated herself as the deposition officer which is prohibited by CCP section 2020.420. Finally, the subpoenas are required to be served in person. These were served by email. Ms. Weischadle was asked to withdraw the subpoenas to avoid the expense involved in the defense having to seek a motion to quash but she refused to do so. Even if the one day deadline was unreasonable, she still never did so. Instead of doing so, she persisted in pursuing improper subpoenas citing in her opposition to the motion the law for "depositions." These were not deposition notices under CCP sections 2025.240 and 2025.280; they were subpoenas for business records under CCP sections 2020.410-2020.440 (which are clearly indicated at the bottom right-hand corner of the subpoenas.) Monetary sanctions are warranted for discovery abuse without substantial justification pursuant to CCP section 2023.030(a) in the sum of $720 ($220 x 3 plus $60 as reasonable costs and fees) payable by Gloria Weischadle to the Client Trust Account of Doyle Schafer McMahon, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620 by 9/16/2022. Ms. Weischadle was given the opportunity to withdraw the subpoenas but chose to not do so and without justification opposed the motion.
Motion to Compel Deposition of the Plaintiff: GRANTED. Plaintiff is to produce herself for deposition on a business date and time to be agreed upon but no later than 9/6/2022 and to start no later than 9:30 a.m, unless agreed to in writing by both sides. The court will not order the deposition to be in person. Covid remains a great concern within Los Angeles County. The court and new CCP section 367.75 and CRC 3.672 encourage remote appearances. There is no need to require Ms. Weischadle to go anywhere but home for her deposition if she has a stable wi-fi connection, computer, and camera. Exhibits can be shared online or sent in advance. If she cannot guarantee a good connection, then she must to a local office of which there are numerous to rent or court reporter’s offices within a few miles of Encino .The court notes, however, that Ms. Weischadle has remotely appeared for court appearances only by phone and not video. Under no circumstances will the court require that this plaintiff who lives in Encino, on a case pending in Van Nuys in which the court has not required personal appearance of counsel or parties, to travel to Irvine for a deposition –a trip of which easily could take a couple of hours one way depending on the time of day. Under the new statute, remote appearances are encouraged. No medical necessity is needed. The court is inclined not to order sanctions because the court cannot say that there was a refusal to attend the deposition in bad faith but clearly extremely poor communication between both sides about where the deposition should take place plus somewhat unreasonable requirements requested by both sides.
Other issues: Of note: Ms. Weischadle is advised that in the future she should not only submit one side of email communications but show the whole email chain as a matter of credibility.
If the defendant wants to move the trial date to accommodate an MSJ because of a 2–3-month delay in getting plaintiff’s deposition taken, the court is amenable to that and can move all dates 30 days forward for discovery cutoff, trial, Final Status Conference and MSJ.
The court reminds all parties that in preparation for the Final Status Conference, there needs to be a single joint list with the names of all witnesses in alphabetical order that both sides may call, (one side cannot strike names from the other sides’ list of names) a single joint list of all exhibits which the parties may use and use only numbers for all exhibits, plaintiff to start with 1 and defendants to start with 500, a list of all jury instructions jointly prepared, individual verdict forms, a Statement of the Case in neutral form. All exhibits must be put into 5 sets of 3 ring binders, one for each side, one for the clerk, one for the judge and one for the witness box, each set to be tabbed and indexed, and every page shall be individually numbered (example, if Exhibit 24 has 10 pages, they would be numbered 24-1, 24-2, 24-3, etc.). The court has free binders available in Dept. T and anyone can come in to pick up binders whenever the court is open. Please call so we can set them aside and be sure that we will be open when you come by.
Finally, Ms. Weischadle is reminded, as the court believes may have been told to her before, that if she wants to issue any subpoenas, for trial or deposition or production of business records, she must submit them to the clerk of the court for issuance.