Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV18914, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18914    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: 29

Defendant’s Motion to Compel the Compliance with Defendant’s Subpoena for Production of Business Records

Tentative

The motion is denied.

Background

On June 9 and September 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Rosa Nava and Fabian Tejada Nava (a minor, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Rosa Nava) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint and First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this action against County of Los Angeles’s Sheriff’s Department (“County”), Anthony Ledesma (“Ledesma”), and Does 1 through 20.  Plaintiffs assert causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident that occurred on December 3, 2021 at or near the intersection of Muscatel Avenue and Garvey Avenue in Rosemead.  Plaintiffs allege that Ledesma, during the course and scope of his employment with County, operated his vehicle in a negligent manner and collided with a vehicle driven by Rosa Nava and carrying Fabian Tejada Nava,

On October 27, 2022, County and Ledesma filed their Answer to the FAC.

On or about May 24, 2023, County issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to El Monte Injury Clinic (“Clinic”). (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) Counsel states that the subpoena was served on Clinic on June 1, but no proof of service is attached to the moving papers.  (Id., ¶ 3 & Exh. A.)  The Deposition Subpoena set the date of production as June 19, 2023.  (Id., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.)

Clinic did not produce documents or otherwise comply with the Deposition Subpoena on June 19, 2023.  (Id., ¶ 4.)  On July 10, 2023, County “was advised that [Clinic] refused to comply with the Deposition Subpoena.”  (Id., ¶ 5.)  A further meet and confer letter sent to Clinic on August 31 did not resolve the dispute.  (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.)

On February 20, 2024, County filed this motion to compel compliance with Defendant’s deposition subpoena for production of business records. County also seeks sanctions.  County personally served Clinic with the motion.

No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

A party seeking discovery from a person who is not a party to the action may obtain discovery by oral deposition, written deposition, or deposition subpoena for production of business records.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010.)¿ A deposition subpoena may command either: (1) only the attendance and testimony of the deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and 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.)¿¿¿

¿

The deposition subpoena must be served a sufficient time in advance of the deposition to provide the deponent a reasonable opportunity to locate and produce any designated documents and, where personal attendance is commanded, a reasonable time to travel to the place of deposition.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (a).)¿ Personal service of any deposition subpoena is effective to require a deponent who is a resident of California to: personally appear and testify, if the subpoena so specifies; to produce any specified documents; and to appear at a court session if the subpoena so specifies.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (c).)¿ A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena may be punished for contempt without the necessity of a prior order of the court directing compliance by the witness.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.240.)¿

If a deponent “fails to answer any question or to produce any document … 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 ….”  (Id., subd. (b).)

¿

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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.”¿

¿¿

“[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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Discussion

County asserts that it served nonparty Clinic with a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, with the date of production set for June 19, 2023.  (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶¶ 3-4 & Exh. A.)  Clinic did not comply and advised County by no later than July 10, 2023, that it would not comply.  (Id., ¶¶ 4-5.)

A motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena must be made within 60 days after completion of the deposition record.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd., (b).)  In the context of a deposition subpoena for the production of business records only, the 60-day period runs from the date objections are served or the date specified for production.  (Board of Registered Nursing v. Super. Ct. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1032-1033 (Guerrero, J.); Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1192; Unzipped Apparel v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 132-136.)¿

Here, County’s motion is untimely.  Clinic failed to produce the documents on June 19, 2023, and advised County that it would not comply on July 10, 2023.  (Kadomatsu Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  County did not file this motion until February 20, 2024, more than seven months later.

Accordingly, County’s motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena is denied.

Conclusion

The Court DENIES County’s motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena.

Moving party is ORDERED to give notice.