Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00007, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00007    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-14-23

Case #22CHCV00007

Trial Date: 5-8-23

DEPO SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY:                Defendants, Mercury Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed/Third Party, Ravi Bhalla

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Compel Compliance with the Subpoena for Production of Documents

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 6, 2022, Plaintiffs Mark and Lisa Winn filed their complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Negligence. Plaintiffs allege a pipe burst in their home on November 7, 2019, which caused water damage. Plaintiff reported it to their insurer, defendant Mercury Insurance Company. Defendant Amos Thibault was assigned to the case by Mercury.

While the insurer and general contractor agreed to a certain amount of work and price, Plaintiffs allege later disputes over the requested expanded scope of work led to a dispute, which Plaintiffs characterize as improper delay and wrongful withholding of benefits. The delays caused a delay with the repairs and longer displacement from Plaintiffs’ home. Plaintiffs submitted an additional claim for additional living expenses, of which the duration of time required was also disputed.

Mercury answered the complaint on April 8, 2022. On April 22, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed Amos Thibault from the entire action.

RULING: Granted

Defendant Mercury Insurance Company moves to compel compliance with the Subpoena for Production of Documents as to third party, CA Developers, Inc.

“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) ... may make an order … directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare...”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

The subpoena was served by counsel on April 14, 2022. [Declaration of Todd Castronovo, Ex. A-C.] Counsel followed up on August 5, 2022, after no response or objection. [Ex. G.] The subpoena remains outstanding.

The court grants the unopposed motion and orders production of the records. CA Developers, Inc. custodian of records, Ravi Bhalla is ordered to either copy the records or make the records available for reproduction within 30 days of this order.

Plaintiff moves for $1,385 in sanctions. “[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2.) The court finds the motion justified, but no basis for the imposition on sanctions against the third party in that the motion is unopposed. The court assumes Plaintiff refused to consent to production, thereby requiring a court order for production.

Motion for Summary Judgment reserved, not filed, for March 23, 2023.

Defendants to give notice.