Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 20STCV25923, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV25923 Hearing Date: April 21, 2025 Dept: 29
Quiej v. Los
Angeles Unified School District
20STCV25923
Defendant’s Motion to Compel Nonparty Los Angeles Military Entrance Processing
Command to Comply with Deposition Subpoena
Tentative
The motion is denied without prejudice.
Background
On July 10, 2020,
Plaintiff Wilzon A. Monzon Quiej, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem
Jackelyne M. Quiej (“Plaintiff”), filed his complaint against Los Angeles
Unified School District (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 100 for negligence,
negligence per se, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision arising
from an incident in which, Plaintiff alleges, he was struck in the head by a
golf club on March 18, 2019.
On March 19,
2021, Defendant filed an answer.
On March 24, 2025, Defendant filed this
motion to compel the deposition of Los Angeles Military Entrance Processing
Command’s person most qualified.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
“Any party may
obtain discovery … by taking in California the oral deposition of any person,
including any party to the action.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)
The process by which a party may obtain discovery from a
person who is not a party to the action is through a deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd.
(b).)
“A deposition subpoena may command any of the following: (a) Only
the attendance and testimony of the deponent …. (b) Only the production of
business records for copying …. (c) The attendance and the testimony of
the deponent, as well as the production of business records, other documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things.” (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2020.020.)
“If
the deponent is an organization, the subpoena shall describe with reasonable
particularity the matters on which examination is requested” and must also
“advise the organization of its duty to make the designation of employees or
agents who will attend the deposition.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.310, subd. (e); see also Code Civ. Proc., §
2020.510, subd. (a)(1).)
A
nonparty must be personally served with a deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd.
(b).) Service must be completed “a
reasonable time” in advance of the deposition and, when documents are
requested, “a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the
deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce” the documents. (Id., subd. (a).)
“If a deponent on whom a deposition subpoena has been served fails
to attend a deposition or refuses to be sworn as a witness, the court may
impose on the deponent the sanctions described in Section 2020.240 [contempt
and an action for civil damages under section 1992].” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2025.440, subd. (b).)
“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any
document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the
deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition
subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order
compelling that answer or production.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480,
subd. (a).) “This motion shall be made no later than 60 days after
the completion of the record of the deposition, and shall be accompanied by a
meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Id., subd. (b).)
“If the
court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery,
it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the
resumption of the deposition. (Id., subd. (i).)
“[T]he court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who
unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production,
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.” (Id., subd. (j).)
In Chapter 7 of the Civil Discovery
Act, section 2023.010, subdivision (d), defines “[m]isuses of the discovery
process” to include “[f]ailing to respond to or to submit to an authorized
method of discovery.” Where a party or
attorney has engaged in misuse of the discovery process, the court may impose a
monetary sanction in the amount of “the reasonable expenses, including
attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” (Id., § 2023.030, subd. (a).)
Except as specifically modified by the
Civil Discovery Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985
through 1997 apply to deposition subpoenas.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.030.)¿
Code of
Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides: “If 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 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 of Civil Procedure section 1987.2,
subdivision (a), states, in relevant part, that in connection with an order
directing compliance with a subpoena, quashing it, or modifying it, “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.”¿
A motion to compel a nonparty to answer questions or produce documents
“must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty
deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.)
Discussion
Defendant served a deposition subpoena for
testimony and production of documents on Los Angeles Military Entrance
Processing Command (“LAMEPC”) on February 26, 2025. (Tourkow Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. B.) The deposition was scheduled for March 17;
the deposition subpoena states that the deposition will be taken at 312 North
Spring Street in Los Angeles (with no further information regarding the
location in the Courthouse), but the notice of deposition and the cover letter (both
of which were also served) state that the deposition will be taken remotely by
videoconference. (Id., Exh. B.) No one from LAMPEC appeared for the
deposition. (Id., ¶ 5 & Exh. C.)
This motion to compel LAMEPC to comply with
the deposition subpoena was filed on March 24, 2025. LAMEPC was served by mail.
This is not proper service on a
nonparty. A nonparty deponent “must be
personally served … 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 Court, rule 3.1346.)
The Court also notes that even there were evidence that LAMEPC
had agreed to accept mail service of the motion, the motion would still be
untimely. For a hearing on April 21,
2025, the last day for personal service was March 27 (16 court days before the hearing);
the last day for mail service was March 22 (5 days earlier). Here, the motion was served by mail on March
24.
Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice
for procedural reasons.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s motion to
compel nonparty Los Angeles Military Entrance Processing Command to comply with
deposition subpoena.