Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCP03215, Date: 2024-10-09 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING.  The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

Case Number: 23STCP03215    Hearing Date: October 9, 2024    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   October 9, 2024                                             

CASE NAME:           Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center v. State of California Department of Public Health

CASE NO.:                23STCP03215

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS

MOVING PARTY:  Plaintiff Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of October 4, 2024

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      An Order quashing the deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents and things served upon Shirin Ramsini, R.N., B.S.N.;

2.      An Order awarding $4,550.00 in sanctions.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Shirin Ramsini, R.N., B.S.N. is GRANTED;

2.      Plaintiff is awarded $525.00 in monetary sanctions payable by Defendant within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On September 5, 2023, Plaintiff Alal, LLC dba Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant State of California Department of Public Health (Defendant) seeking an order dismissing Citation No. 92-6637600-0018822-S issued by Defendant against Plaintiff.

On October 3, 2023, Defendant filed a general denial.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 21, 2024. Oppositions were due on or before September 25, 2024. As of October 4, 2024, the court has not received an opposition from Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD:

“Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)¿ 

¿ 

“…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…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.” (CCP § 1987.1(a).) A court may quash a subpoena entirely or partially, and issue an order to protect parties, witnesses or consumers from unreasonable or oppressive demands including violations of privacy. (CCP §1987.1.)¿ 

A party may move to quash a defective deposition notice. (CCP § 2025.410(c).)

ANALYSIS:

Motion to Quash

Plaintiff contends the court should quash the deposition subpoena to Nurse Ramsini because it has multiple procedural defects. Defendant has not filed an opposition.

CCP § 2034.410 provides that “[o]n receipt of an expert witness list from a party, any other party may take the deposition of any person on the list” pursuant to the same procedures for taking oral depositions as otherwise provided per code. CCP § 2025.220 provides the requisite form and contents of a deposition notice. Notice is mandatory. (CCP § 2025.220(a).) The deposing party is required to give notice “to every other party who has appeared in the action.” (CCP § 2025.240(a).) Such notice “shall be scheduled for a date at least 10 days after service of the deposition notice” unless the deponent is also required to produce records in which case “the deposition shall be scheduled for a date at least 20 days after issuance of that subpoena.” (CCP § 2025.270(a), (c).)

Here, Defendant’s deposition subpoena is defective due to lack of notice.[1] Notably, Defendant did not timely provide notice to Plaintiff because they set the deposition for June 24, 2024 but did not notify Plaintiff until June 17, 2024 which is less than 10 days’ notice and well less than 20 days’ notice for production of records. (Swann Decl. Exhibit 4.) Plaintiff also timely objected to the defective notice. (Swann Decl. Exhibit 7.)

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $4,550.00 in sanctions against Defendant for misusing the discovery process representing eight hours of work preparing this motion, an anticipated four hours responding to an opposition, and one hour attending the hearing at counsel’s hourly rate of $350.00. (Swann Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendant did not file an opposition.

CCP § 2025.410(d) provides for mandatory sanctions against a party “who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Here, sanctions are warranted despite lack of opposition. Indeed, it appears there has been no further action on this deposition at all since late June. However, the amount Plaintiff requests is unreasonable. First, there was no opposition so there was no need to review it and to respond to it. Second, this is not a complicated motion necessitating two hours, let alone eight hours of work. As such, the court will award 1.5 hours at counsel’s rate of $350.00 per hour for a total of $525.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena of Shirin Ramsini, R.N., B.S.N. is GRANTED;

2.Plaintiff is awarded $525.00 in monetary sanctions payable by Defendant within 30 days’ notice of this ruling.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             October 9, 2024                      __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court