Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 23STCV04228, Date: 2024-12-12 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 19 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
If you desire to submit on a tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 19 before 08:00 a.m. on the day of the motion hearing. The e-mail address for submitting is SMCDept19@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail must contain the case name and number, and that you submit. For example, "Smith v. Jones BC551124, submit". The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent.
PLEASE NOTE, The above e-mail address is only to inform the Court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries or correspondence will not receive a response.
Case Number: 23STCV04228 Hearing Date: December 12, 2024 Dept: 19
After consideration of the
briefing and oral argument at the hearing, Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion To
Compel Compliance By Jamel Adams With Deposition Subpoena For Personal
Appearance And Request For Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED as follows:
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion To Compel Compliance
By Jamel Adams With Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance. The Court
orders Jamel Adams to sit for a deposition, to be conduced by remote video conference, by January 30,
2025.
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Request For Monetary
Sanctions in the reduced amount of $1,120.00.
Counsel for Defendant to give notice.
This is
a breach of contract action. Plaintiff JaShawn Wiley (“Plaintiff”) brings suit
against Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (“Defendant”)
alleging the following causes of action:
Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant breached automotive insurance Policy No. CAA 106045857
when Defendant denied Plaintiff’s claim for damage to her vehicle occurring
when it was involved in a hit-and-run while unoccupied.
Defendant filed the instant Motion To Compel Compliance By Jamel
Adams With Deposition Subpoena For Personal Appearance And Request For Monetary
Sanctions (the “Motion”).
Defendant seeks an order compelling compliance with a
Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance (the “Subpoena”) issued April 15,
2024 and personally served on Non-Party Jamel Adams on April 26, 2024 seeking
to depose Non-Party Jamel Adams by remote video conference on May 7, 2024.
Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1987.1, 2020.020, and 2023.010, Defendant moves for an order
directing compliance with the Subpoena on the ground that Non-Party Jamel Adams failed, without justification,
to comply with the Subpoena.
Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure sections 1987.2, 2023.010, and 2023.020, Defendant moves for an award
of $1,385.00 in attorney’s fees and costs against Non-Party Jamel Adams.
DISCUSSION
1.
Service
of the Subpoena
A deposition subpoena on a nonparty
deponent must be personally served on the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220(b)-(c).)
Here, the Court finds that Defendant
sufficiently establishes that the Subpoena was personally served on Non-Party Jamel
Adams. (Tina M. Bhatia Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. D [proof of service of Subpoena];
German Lopez Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.)
2.
Service
of Motion
California Rules of Court, rule 3.1346
provides that:
A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an
answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or
tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the
nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail
or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on
the deposition record.
(Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1346.)
The proof of service, filed on October
1, 2024, indicates that Non-Party Jamel Adams was personally served with the
moving papers on September 17, 2024. Thus, the Court finds that the moving
papers were served in the manner prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule
3.1346.
B.
Analysis
1.
Motion
to Compel
Code of Civil Procedure section
1987.1, subdivision (a) provides as follows:
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, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision
(b), 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 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 person from
unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the
right of privacy of the person.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).)
A party may make a motion pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a). (Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.1(b).)
Here, Defendant contends that Non-Party
Jamel Adams is the Plaintiff’s brother, failed to comply with the Subpoena
noticing his deposition via videoconference for May 7, 2024, and that Non-Party
Jamel Adams should be compelled to comply with the Subpoena because his
testimony “¿is essential to the Exchange’s defense
in that he is the individual who was responsible for the subject vehicle on the
date of the alleged incident and the individual who interacted with the tow
truck driver upon allegedly noticing the vehicle the plaintiff’s vehicle was on
a flatbed,” and he is “¿the individual who allegedly retrieved
the note from Erin Thomas, the driver of the vehicle which allegedly hit the
plaintiff’s parked vehicle, from the tow truck driver.” (Motion, pp. 8-9; Tina
M. Bhatia Decl., ¶¶ 3-13.)
As such, and given that Non-Party Jamel
Adams failed to file any opposition or objections to the Subpoena, the Court
GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance by Non-Party Jamel Adams with
the Subpoena.
2. Sanctions
Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.2, 2023.010, and 2023.020, Defendant
moves for an award of $1,385.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. (Motion at p. 10;
Bhatia Decl. at ¶ 16.)
Code of Civil Procedure
section 2023.010, subdivision (d) provides that it is a misuse of the discovery
process to fail to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010(h).)
Code of Civil Procedure section
2023.030 provides, in relevant part:
To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular
discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice
to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing,
may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a
misuse of the discovery process:
(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging
in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct,
or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by
anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on
one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the
discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both.
If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court
shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction
acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the
imposition of the sanction unjust.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030(a); see Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.040 provides that:
A request for a sanction shall, in the notice
of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction
is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall
be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a
declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction
sought.
(Code Civ. Proc., 2023.040.)
Given that Non-Party Jamel Adams
failed to respond to the Subpoena that was properly served on his, the Court
finds that sanctions are warranted.
Relying on its own knowledge and
familiarity with the legal market, (569 East County Boulevard LLC v.
Backcountry Against the Dump, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 426, 437), the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of
$265.00 per hour is reasonable.
The Court finds the 3.0 hours
requested to prepare and file the Motion are reasonable. (Bhatia Decl.
at ¶ 16.)
However,
given the lack of opposition, the Court only awards an additional 1.0 hour to
appear at the hearing.
Thus, the Court awards attorney’s fees for 4.0 hours, for a total of $1,060.00
in attorney’s fees.
The Court also awards $60.00 in costs for the filing fee, (Bhatia Decl.
at ¶ 16), for a total award of $1,120.00.
As such, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Non-Party Jamel Adams in the reduced amount of $1,120.00.