Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV38046, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 19STCV38046    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

JONATHAN MELIM-HONORE,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

JOSE CASTANEDA, et al.,

 

                   Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 19STCV38046

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS JD & LA TRUCKING, INC. AND JOSE CASTANEDA’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIRD-PARTY JENNIFER NOGAWA TO COMPLY WITH BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 27

1:30 p.m.

September 15, 2022

 

On October 22, 2019, plaintiff Jonathan Melim-Honore (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Jose Castaneda and JD & LA Trucking, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) arising from an automobile accident that occurred on November 13, 2017.  On July 22, 2022, Defendants filed this motion to compel Jennifer Nogawa (“Nogawa”), a non party, to produce business records pursuant to a subpoena.  Nogawa is the owner of the vehicle Plaintiff was driving at the time of the accident and Defendants wish to inspect the vehicle. 

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: (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.)

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).) 

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a declaration from Jiayu Liu (“Liu”) who says they were mistaken for Nogawa and that Nogawa was not present at the time they were served with the subpoena.  (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) 

Defendants did not file a reply brief.  Absent evidence that Nogawa was actually served with the subpoena, the Court will not grant Defendants’ motion for an order compelling Nogawa’s production of the vehicle.  Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.