Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCP01857, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01857    Hearing Date: March 24, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed this action on May 13, 2022 against Defendant Roxana Vasquez (“Defendant”).

State Farm indicates that it is an insurer on a claim submitted by Defendant for purported property damage to a 2016 Nissan Sentra, which allegedly occurred on August 17, 2021, in    Los Angeles, California. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 2.) As part of the claim investigation being conducted by State Farm, Defendant was required to produce cellular phone records from MetroPCS for the time period of August 15, 2021 through August 19, 2021. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant requested the documents from MetroPCS but the insured was told that the records would only be released pursuant to a subpoena. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant signed and notarized an authorization to release the records. (Trafton Decl.,    ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Thereafter, State Farm filed the instant Petition on May 13, 2022 in order to obtain a case number to issue a subpoena. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 6.)

State Farm issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the Custodian of Records for MetroPCS which is now “Metro by T-Mobile” (the “Subpoena”). (Trafton Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) State Farm indicates that T-Mobile objected to the Subpoena on a number of grounds, including on the grounds that “[a] court order is required for release of pre-paid records.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C.)

On February 1, 2023, counsel for State Farm attended an Informal Discovery Conference. The Court’s February 1, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “Plaintiff has fulfilled the Informal Discovery Conference neither defendant nor Metro attended this date.”

State Farm now moves “for an Order regarding the subpoena to the Custodian of Records for MetroPCS California, LLC to produce records.” No opposition to the motion was filed.  

Discussion

State Farm asserts that the Court “may issue an Order regarding the Subpoena.” (Mot. at p. 5:2.)

State Farm cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985, subdivision (c), which provides that “[t]he clerk, or a judge, shall issue a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum signed and sealed but otherwise in blank to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service. An attorney at law who is the attorney of record in an action or proceeding, may sign and issue a subpoena to require attendance before the court in which the action or proceeding is pending or at the trial of an issue therein, or upon the taking of a deposition in an action or proceeding pending therein; the subpoena in such a case need not be sealed. An attorney at law who is the attorney of record in an action or proceeding, may sign and issue a subpoena duces tecum to require production of the matters or things described in the subpoena.”

The Court finds that this provision is inapplicable here. State Farm indicates that it already served the Subpoena on MetroPCS (Trafton Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.), and requests that “the court issue a court order to require MetroPCS California, LLC to release and produce the records to State Farm so that State Farm can proceed with this case and obtain all relevant records.” (Mot. at p. 5:22-25.)

Thus, it appears that State Farm is seeking an order compelling compliance with the Subpoena. However, State Farm’s motion does not cite to or apply any legal authority applicable to a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena.[1]

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies State Farm’s motion without prejudice.

The Court orders State Farm to give notice of this order. 

DATED:  March 24, 2023                 

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court