Judge Yolanda Orozco, Case 22STCP01027 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCP01027, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01027 Hearing Date: July 26, 2022 Dept: 31

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA IS DENIED

Background

On March 21, 2022, Petitioner Nuvasive, Inc. (“NuVasive”) filed this petition seeking to quash a subpoena for the production of business records and deposition in an action pending outside of California.

Plaintiff-Respondent Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., and Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”) allege that Defendant Dr. Rick Sasso unlawfully disclosed Medtronic’s confidential information and trade secrets to Medtronic’s competitor NuVasive, who then used that information to develop competing products. Dr. Sasso counterclaimed alleging tortious interference with his business relationship with NuVasive.

Medtronic’s case against Dr. Sasso is currently before the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis and is entitled Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., et al. v. Rick C. Sasso, M.D., Case No. CT-003271-21, dated August 13, 2021. (Hood Decl. Ex. C.)

NuVasive is not a party to the pending Tennessee action, but it has been subpoenaed for Production of Business Records, including Subpoena for Deposition Testimony, by Medtronic. NuVasive now moves to quash the subpoena. (Hood Decl. A.)

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary. Section 1987.1 states, “If 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.”

Discussion

Under the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345, a motion to compel or quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled.

Petitioner NuVasive’s petition to quash a foreign subpoena is procedurally defective because NuVasive failed to file a separate statement outlining its objections to Medtronic’s subpoena. Although Rule 3.1345 does not necessarily preclude this court from entertaining the motion to quash, the court cannot proceed on this motion because there is no declaration from NuVasive’s counsel specifically setting forth its objection to the contents of the deposition at issue. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390,409 n.14.)

Lastly, NuVasive’s argument that CCP Section 2020.420 requires Medtronic to designate a valid deposition officer is inapplicable because Medtronic is seeking both the production of business records and live testimony, not just business records. However, Medtronic is required to state the name of the superior court of the county in which the discovery is to be conducted. (CCP 2029.350(b).) Therefore, Medtronic is ordered to serve an amended subpoena.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.

Petitioner NuVasive to give notice.

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All social distancing protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.