2017-00211451-CU-MT

William Cheng vs. County of Sacramento

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel

Filed By: Cheng, Janet & William

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Damages for defendants failure to obey the civil subpoenas is denied.

Self-represented plaintiffs contend defendants failed to comply with subpoenas that were served on defendant. Plaintiffs have attached to their motion two subpoenas dated February 2, 2018, one issued to Sacramento County, Chief of Utilities Wendy Randolph, and the other issued to the Director of Finance Tax Collector Ben Lamera. Neither of the Subpoenas contain a date for production in the designated section on page 1, paragraph 1. However, on page 2, section 2, the subpoena states that deponents shall serve certain bank statements and to provide the Wells Fargo bank account number for property taxes and garbage pick up, on or before February 13, 2018.

Plaintiffs have misused the subpoena process. The manner in which to seek documents from a party is a Request for Production of Documents pursuant to CCP 2031.010, not the use of civil subpoenas, which are used to compel the appearance of a non-party. Indeed, Code of Civil Procedure § 2020.010 (a)provides that a “deposition for production of business records and things” “may be used to obtain discovery within the state from a person who is not a party to the action in which the discovery is sought.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.010 (emphasis added).) Under this section, Plaintiff’s attempt to use a subpoena as to Defendant was not a permissible use of that particular discovery mechanism.

In addition, Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are defective. The subpoenas required production of documents 11 days from the date the subpoenas were issued. There are no proofs of service of the subpoenas. A business records subpoena must be served on the custodian of records, must specifically describe the items sought or reasonably particularize the category of items, and shall command compliance on a date that is no earlier than 20 days from the date after issuance, or 15 days after the date of service of the subpoena. CCP 2020.410(a)(c). Therefore requiring production 11 days from the date of service renders the subpoenas defective, even if they were served on a non-party.

Since plaintiffs have not served a valid subpoena, they are not entitled to any sanctions for disobedience of a subpoena.

In opposition County states that it has provided the relevant bank information to the plaintiff’s regarding the deposit of their property tax payments. Moreover, County states that one of the subpoenas that is the subject of this motion was never served. The other subpoena was improperly served on County Counsel, not the deponent Mr. Lamera. Service of a subpoena duces tecum on an attorney for a named witness is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over the witness. In re Abrams (1980) 108

Cal.App.3d 685, 691-692.

Self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639. The Court recognizes that plaintiff is self-represented and no doubt has little or no legal training. However, self-represented litigants required to follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation. McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523. A party representing himself is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210)