This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/16/2020 at 10:20:44 (UTC).

CAROLE SIEGEL VS ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL

Case Summary

On 08/08/2017 CAROLE SIEGEL filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARC D. GROSS, JON R. TAKASUGI, SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON and HOLLY E. KENDIG. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1384

  • Filing Date:

    08/08/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARC D. GROSS

JON R. TAKASUGI

SUSAN BRYANT-DEASON

HOLLY E. KENDIG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

SIEGEL CAROLE

Defendants and Respondents

VOGEL ROBERT HERMAN

DOES 1 TO 100

ESTATE OF ROBERT VOGEL (DOE 100)

ESTATE OF ROBERT VOGEL DOE 100

B&D LAW GROUP APLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GEOULLA DANIEL D. ESQ.

GEOULLA DANIEL DANNY ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

GIBBS PATRICK J. ESQ.

GIBBS PATRICK JOSEPH ESQ.

HARWOOD KATHERINE M.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

8/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (INFORMAL DISCOVERY CONFERENCE (IDC))

Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

7/10/2020: Informal Discovery Conference Form for Personal Injury Courts

Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

7/8/2020: Reply - REPLY TO OPPOSITION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

4/10/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

3/5/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOE...)

Case Management Statement

1/13/2020: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION OFF CALENDAR

10/23/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING MOTION OFF CALENDAR

Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING OFF-CALENDAR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, AND REQUEST FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIO

10/18/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING OFF-CALENDAR DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, AND REQUEST FOR CONTEMPT SANCTIO

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH & REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/8/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO QUASH & REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Separate Statement

9/4/2019: Separate Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION OF KATHERINE HARWOOD IN SUPPORT

7/30/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF KATHERINE HARWOOD IN SUPPORT

Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

7/30/2019: Reply - REPLY DEFENDANTS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Motion to Quash

7/24/2019: Motion to Quash

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CARRIE HEWERDINE

7/24/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CARRIE HEWERDINE

Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFF'S OMNIBUS OPPOSITION

7/24/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION ISO PLAINTIFF'S OMNIBUS OPPOSITION

Notice of Status Conference and Order

6/24/2019: Notice of Status Conference and Order

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DEEM CASE COMPLICATED AND ...) OF 06/19/2019

6/19/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DEEM CASE COMPLICATED AND ...) OF 06/19/2019

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

4/8/2019: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

152 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/01/2021
  • Hearing02/01/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 56 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Estate of Robert Herman Vogel Erroneously Sued As Estate of Robert Vogel (Doe 100) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition (the Second Session of Nancy Ramsey's Deposition; Motion for Protective Order; Appoint a Discovery Referee; and Request for Sanctions Against Defendant Estate of Robert Vogel & Its Attorney of Record Rachel Boden, Esq.; of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar,) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition the Second Session of ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/23/2020
  • DocketReply (Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel the Second Session of Nancy Ramsey's Deposition); Filed by Carole Siegel (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketReply (TO DEFENDANT?S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL THE SECOND SESSION OF NANCY RAMSEY?S DEPOSITION); Filed by Carole Siegel (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketOpposition (TO PLAINTIFF?S MOTION TO COMPEL); Filed by Estate of Robert Herman Vogel Erroneously Sued As Estate of Robert Vogel (Doe 100) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Estate of Robert Herman Vogel Erroneously Sued As Estate of Robert Vogel (Doe 100) (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 56; Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Informal Discovery Conference (IDC))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
217 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2018
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketReceipt; Filed by Robert Herman Vogel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketDEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketCIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketDemand for Jury Trial; Filed by Robert Herman Vogel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Robert Herman Vogel (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/11/2017
  • DocketANSWER TO COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Carole Siegel (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Carole Siegel (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC671384    Hearing Date: September 29, 2020    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CAROLE SIEGEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC671384

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL THE SECOND SESSION OF NANCY RAMSEY’S DEPOSITION; MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; APPOINT A DISCOVERY REFEREE; AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

Date: September 29, 2020

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Carole Siegel

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Estate of Robert Herman Vogel

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged slip-and-fall on Defendant Robert Vogel’s property which occurred on August 21, 2015. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) negligence. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, and loss of earning capacity.

The Current Motion

On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order: (1) to compel a second session of Nancy Ramsey’s (“Ramsey”) deposition; (2) for the appointment of a discovery referee at the deposition; and (3) for monetary sanctions against Defendant and its attorney of record, Rachel Boden, Esq. (“Boden”) of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar, LLP in the amount of $4,500.00. Plaintiff’s motion is brought on the grounds that Plaintiff was forced to suspend the deposition of Ramsey due to Boden interrupting the deposition four times and coaching and suggesting answers to Ramsey. Plaintiff contends that, due to Boden’s actions, Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Kheiri (“Kheiri”), was forced to cancel the deposition of Ramsey.

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff submitted two reply briefs in support of her motion—one reply brief on August 22, 2020 and the second reply brief on August 23, 2020. The first reply brief lacked a proof of service while the second reply brief included a proof of service. From the Court’s review of both reply briefs, they appear identical but for the proof of service.

Also, the Court finds that Plaintiff is seeking to compel a second session of a deposition with respect to Ramsey yet the moving and reply papers reference the deposition of Lynn Robert Vogel (“Vogel”). The Court fails to see how the deposition of Vogel is relevant to compelling a second deposition with respect to Ramsey only. Plaintiff’s notice of motion makes no request with respect to Vogel at all.

Also, the parties’ respective papers make reference to a protective order. The Court finds, however, that Plaintiff’s notice of motion does not request a protective order. Even if Plaintiff were seeking a protective order of some sort in the body of the motion, Plaintiff’s notice of motion would be improper to obtain such relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a) which states that “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.”

The Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiff contends that: (1) Boden abused the discovery process; (2) Plaintiff was compelled to suspend the deposition of Ramsey; (3) Plaintiff requests that Ramsey re-appear for her deposition; (4) Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint a discovery referee; and (5) the Court should impose monetary sanctions against Defendant and Defendant’s counsel for their repeated misuse of the discovery process.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff’s motion and contends that: (1) Plaintiff took a full deposition of Ramsey; (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order should be denied; (3) a discovery referee, with the costs shared by the parties, is warranted; (4) Plaintiff, her counsel, or both should be sanctioned for misuse of discovery; and (5) no sanctions against Defendant are warranted.

Plaintiff’s Evidence in Support of Motion

Plaintiff provides the declaration of Kheiri who sets forth: (1) that depositions of Vogel and Ramsey took place (Kheiri Decl. at ¶¶ 4-6); (2) the nature of Ramsey’s deposition and how Borden displayed abusive behavior which amounted to coaching (Id. at ¶ 7 and Exhibits B, E); (3) that he warned Boden about coaching and interrupting Ramsey’s declaration numerous times until he was forced to terminate Ramsey’s deposition (Id. at ¶ 12); (4) that Boden interrupted the deposition of Ramsey four times and coached/suggested the answers to Ramsey no less than four times (Id. at ¶¶ 19-26 and Exhibit E); and (5) the costs incurred in connection with Plaintiff’s motion and his hourly rate. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.)

Defendant’s Evidence in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion

In support of Defendant’s opposition, Boden provides a declaration setting forth: (1) her basis for objecting to questions Kheiri was posing to Ramsey at the deposition (Boden Decl. at ¶ 5); (2) her belief that a discovery referee is appropriate due to her feeling harassed by Kheiri’s abusive behavior (Id. at ¶ 7); (3) that she believes that the costs of the discovery referee should be shared by both parties (Id.); and (4) her proposed discovery referees including their names, contact information, and fees. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.)

The Informal Discovery Conference

On August 27, 2020, the Court held an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s order in connection thereto stated that: (1) counsel would meet and confer on the possible appointment of a discovery master; and (2) the motion for protective order would remain on calendar.

DISCUSSION

It is improper for an attorney to coach a witness during a deposition. (Tucker v. Pacific Bell Mobile Services (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1560-1561.) “Examination and cross-examination of the deponent shall proceed as permitted at trial under the provisions of the Evidence Code.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.330(d).) “[D]eponents may not be prevented by counsel from answering a question unless it pertains to privileged matters or deposing counsel’s conduct has reached a stage where suspension is warranted.” (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1015.) Objections in a deposition cannot be advanced “to stifle discovery and to virtually bring the deposition to a grinding halt.” (In re Marriage of Lemen (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 769, 783.) Counsel cannot behave in a manner “to frustrate the achievement of the legitimate purposes of discovery.” (Id.) A second session of a person’s deposition is not allowed “unless the parties and the deponent agree to one or the court grants leave to take a subsequent deposition for good cause shown.” (McCoy v. Gustafson (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 56, 97.) “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Specific facts must be shown to meet the good cause standard. (Id.)

Issue No.1: Good Cause

Initially, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s citation to Hall is inapplicable to the instant action. (Hall v. Clifton Precision, a Div. of Liton Systems, Inc. (E.D. Penn. 1993) 150 F.R.D. 525.) Hall addressed only federal law and did not mention California law at all.

Based on a review of Exhibit E—to which Plaintiff in her moving papers indicates contains the pertinent portions of deposition transcripts—the Court finds that Plaintiff received answers with respect to instances where Plaintiff alleges that Boden acted improperly. While Boden did assert numerous objections, Ramsey eventually answered the questions to which Kheiri was inquiring. Additionally, based on the Court’s review, Boden at times stated objections but merely provided additional details on the grounds for such objection. In fact, in some instances, Boden even instructed Ramsey to answer a question but did not provide any indication of how Boden wanted Ramsey to answer such question. In other instances, Boden inquired into Kheiri’s questioning in order to determine whether such question was objectionable due to the lack of clarity in questioning. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, in connection with the six instances of dialogue during the deposition that Plaintiff takes issue with, Boden never instructed Ramsey not answer a question. (Kheiri Decl. at Exhibit E.) The declarations of Kheiri in connection with the moving and reply papers fail to show good cause. Moreover, it appears to the Court that the instances of interruption or objection did not result in Kheiri not receiving answers to his questions from Ramsey.

Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown good cause to compel a second session of a deposition of Ramsey.

Issue No.2: Discovery Referee

In her reply brief, Plaintiff contends that: (1) appointing a discovery referee is patently unfair under the circumstances because she is not in a position to pay such costs; and (2) Plaintiff is not willing to forfeit her access to justice within the court system in a favor of a private discovery referee. The Court, however, finds this contention logically incorrect due to Plaintiff seeking a discovery referee to preside over a potential second session of the deposition of Ramsey. In fact, Plaintiff’s moving papers explicitly requested a discovery referee although the moving papers requested that Defendant bear all costs of the discovery referee.

“When the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the written motion of any party, or of its own motion, appoint a [discovery] referee.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 639(a).) A discovery referee may be appointed when “the court in any pending action determines that it is necessary for the court to appoint a referee to hear and determine any and all discovery motions and disputes relevant to discovery in the action and to report findings and make a recommendation thereon.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 639(a)(5).) “In determining whether a party has an established inability to pay the referee’s fees . . . the court shall consider only the ability of the party, not the party’s counsel, to pay these fees.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 639(d)(6)(B).) “Unless both parties have agreed to a reference, the court should not make blanket orders directing all discovery motions to a discovery referee except in the unusual case where a majority of factors favoring reference are present. These include: (1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed . . . make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming.” (Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105.)

“Sections 639 and 645.1 . . . are silent with respect to the dilemma of a party of modest means who does not qualify for the cost protection afforded by proceeding in forma pauperis. Reference to a discovery referee imposes a substantial economic burden on such parties.” (Solorzano v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 603, 615.) A court must “consider the economic impact the order of reference will have on the parties.” (Id.) “[N]o division or allocation of hourly fees for the services of a privately compensated discovery referee that imposes a monetary burden on impecunious litigants can achieve the fair and reasonable goal of section 645.1.” (Id.) When appointing a discovery referee pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 639 “at any time after a determination of ability to pay is made as specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (d) of Section 639, the court may order the parties to pay the fees of the referees who are not employees or officers of the court at the time of appointment, as fixed pursuant to Section 1023, in any manner determined by the court to be fair and reasonable, including an apportionment of the fees among the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 645.1(b).) If parties do not agree on the selection of a discovery referee then each party must “submit to the court up to three nominees for appointment as referee and the could shall appoint one or more referees, not exceeding three, from among the nominees against whom there is no legal objection.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 640(b).)

Analysis

Plaintiff’s reply brief contends that she has very limited financial resources “nowhere near what Defendant has behind it to litigate this case and litigate Plaintiff out of the case by effect of pricing Plaintiff out.” (Reply at 5:12-14.) In considering the appointment of a discovery referee and “in determining whether a party has established an inability to pay the fees, [a court] shall consider, among other things, the estimated cost of the referral and the impact of the proposed fees on the party’s ability to proceed with the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 639(d)(6)(B).)

Given that Plaintiff has indicated that she is of modest means, possesses limited resources, and she would effectively be litigated out of this case by reference to a discovery referee, the Court denies Defendant’s request that this action be appointed to a discovery referee with the costs equally shared by the parties. Also, the balance of factors articulated in Taggares are not present to warrant referral of discovery motions to a referee.

Issue No.3: Monetary Sanctions

California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2023.030(a) provides that “[t]he court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.” A misuse of the discovery process includes “[m]aking or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or limit discovery.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010(h).)

As stated above, Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the relief requested in her motion and, as such, Plaintiff’s motion fails. Defendant provides the declaration of its counsel, David J. Mendoza (“Mendoza”), in support of its sanctions request, in which he sets forth: (1) his hourly rate; (2) the time spent drafting the opposition to Plaintiff’s motion; and (3) the anticipated time spent reviewing Plaintiff’s reply and time attending the hearing. (Mendoza Decl. at ¶ 2.) Mendoza states that the total amount of monetary sanctions requested is $1,400.00. (Id.)

The Court exercises its discretion and DENIES Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.  If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 29th day of September 2020

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC671384    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

CAROLE SIEGEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT HERMAN VOGEL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC671384

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR SANT MARY HOSPTIAL; REQUEST FOR CONTEMPT AND MONETARY SANCTIONS

Date: November 4, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Estate of Robert Herman Vogel (“Moving Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Carole Siegel

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from an alleged slip-and-fall on the property of Defendant Robert Vogel (“Mr. Vogel”). Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging causes of action for: (1) premises liability; and (2) negligence. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, and loss of earning capacity.

Moving Defendant filed a motion for an order compelling the production of documents by the Custodian of Records (“COR”) for Saint Mary Hospital (“SMH”) pursuant to the deposition subpoena personally served on the COR on June 5, 2019, and within 15 days. Moving Defendant asserts that: (1) it has complied with all procedural requirements; (2) Plaintiff’s employment records are relevant to the determination of damages in this action; (3) Plaintiff has waived her privacy rights as to the employment records by filing this lawsuit; and (4) contempt and monetary sanctions should be awarded against SMH and its COR.

Moving Defendant also seeks contempt and monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,200.00 against SMH and its COR for willful misuse of the discovery process including unreasonable refusal to comply with the deposition subpoena by failing to produce the subpoenaed records, as well as necessitating the filing of the instant motion by Moving Defendant.

Plaintiff opposes Moving Defendant’s motion on the grounds that: (1) Moving Defendant’s motion is untimely and the Court is without jurisdiction to grant it; (2) Moving Defendant’s motion is unmeritorious and should be denied; (3) Moving Defendant has failed to show good cause; (4) monetary sanctions should be awarded against Moving Defendant and its counsel; and (5) the COR for SMH was not served with the deposition subpoena and as such Defendant is in violation of California Rules of Court, Rule 8.817.

DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court, Rule 8.817(a)(1) says that “[b]efore filing any document, a party must serve, by any method permitted by the Code of Civil Procedure, one copy of the document on the attorney for each party separately represented, on each unrepresented party, and on any other person or entity when required by statute or rule.” California Rules of Court, Rule 8.817(b) says that “[t]he party must attach to the document presented for filing a proof of service showing service on each person or entity required to be served under (1). The proof must name each party represented by each attorney served.”

Plaintiff’s argument that the COR for SMH was not ever served with Moving Defendant’s deposition subpoena is correct. There is no proof of service lodged in connection with Moving Defendant’s moving or reply papers that indicates that the deposition subpoena was ever served on the COR for SMH. Moving Defendant has provided the Court with a proof of service indicating that SMH’s COR was only served with the instant motion to compel that Moving Defendant filed. (Pham Reply Decl. at Exhibit B.) There is no proof of service indicating that the COR for SMH was ever served with the deposition subpoena for the production of business records. (Pham Decl. at Exhibit B.)

Given that there is no proof of service indicating that the COR for SMH was ever served with deposition subpoena in connection with Moving Defendant’s motion, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Moving Defendant’s motion as it would be improper for the Court to compel the COR of SMH to comply with a deposition subpoena the COR for SMH never had notice of.

In its discretion, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Moving Defendant and its counsel in the amount of $1,950.00 under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2025.480(e). Given that the Court did not reach the merits of Moving Defendant’s motion due to the above defect, the Court finds that imposing sanctions against Moving Defendant and its counsel would be unjust due to the circumstances of Moving Defendant’s motion being procedurally improper.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 4th day of November 2019

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court