Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 22STCV04519, Date: 2022-08-03 Tentative Ruling
Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.
In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:
The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.
Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.
If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.
**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.
Case Number: 22STCV04519 Hearing Date: August 3, 2022 Dept: 31
MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA IS DENIED
Background
This is an action in which Plaintiff alleges that its former employees misappropriated Plaintiff’s trade secrets relating to its produce business in order to aid and join a competitor. On September 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) trade secret misappropriation, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) intentional interference with contract, (4) breach of loan agreement, (5) breach of confidentiality agreement, (6) violations of the UCL, (7) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 provides that “[i]f 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, upon motion reasonably made by [a party or a witness] . . . 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.”
Discussion
Plaintiff moves the Court to compel non-party Green Farms California, LLC, Dba Worldwide Produce to comply with and produce documents in response to the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, which was served by West Central on March 11, 2022.
Plaintiff attaches the March 11, 2022 subpoena as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of Aaron Levine. The accompanying proof of service is purportedly included in Exhibit 8, however there is no proof of service attached. (Levine, ¶8, Exh. 8.) Thus, Plaintiff fails to show a properly served subpoena. This is a concern because the non-party asserts that the subpoena was served at the wrong address. (Opp., pp. 1-2.)
The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s motion must also be denied for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346. Rule 3.1346 requires that “[a] written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.” Based upon the proof of service, the non-party was served by e-mail to counsel, not personal service.
Conclusion
The motion is DENIED without prejudice for the stated reasons.
Moving party 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 masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.