Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV32240, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32240    Hearing Date: December 8, 2023    Dept: 29

Tentative

The motion to compel Savage X Fenty to comply with the subpoena issued on or about July 13, 2022 (motion filed on 2/24/23) is DENIED as moot.

Discussion

On August 31, 2021, Plaintiff Jenna Suhl (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Rayane Laoubi (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for negligence arising out of a vehicle collision that occurred on October 9, 2019, on Arbor Vitae Street in Inglewood, California. Plaintiff alleged damages include a claim for “loss of earnings and earning capacity, both past and future, in amounts according to proof.” (Complaint, ¶ 11.)

In discovery, Plaintiff stated that she was seeking to recover (among other damages) $60,000 in lost wages from her job at her former employer Savage Fenty (“Employer”). (Motion, 1:24-26.)

On or about July 13, 2022, Defendant issued a subpoena to Employer seeking “any and all documents and records pertaining to the employment and earnings” of Plaintiff (the “2022 Subpoena”). (Capabianco Decl., ¶ 6.)

On February 24, 2023, Defendant moved for an order compelling Employer to comply with the 2022 Subpoena.  The hearing was scheduled for November 13, 2023 (later continued to December 8, 2023).

In the interim, Plaintiff moved to quash the 2022 Subpoena.  The Court granted that motion on April 19, 2023.

Defendant issued a narrow subpoena to Employer on or about May 30, 2023 (the “2023 Subpoena”).  Plaintiff moved to quash the 2023 Subpoena.  The Court denied that motion on August 11, 2023.

Now the hearing on the motion filed by Defendant for an order compelling Employer to comply with the 2022 Subpoena comes before the Court.  As the Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion to quash the 2022 Subpoena, Defendant’s motion is DENIED as moot.  The Court will not order a third party to comply with a subpoena that has been quashed.

In denying the motion for an order compelling compliance with the 2022 Subpoena, the Court expresses no views on any motion for an order compelling compliance with the 2023 Subpoena (other than to note that the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to quash that subpoena).  If Defendant seeks such an order, a new motion must be filed, and both Plaintiff and the subpoenaed party must be properly served.

Conclusion

The motion to compel Savage X Fenty to comply with the subpoena issued on or about July 13, 2022 (motion filed on 2/24/23) is DENIED as moot.