Defendants/Cross-Complainants Vanna Tamar Kitsinian and Satig Derohanessian’s Motion for Order to Compel Amy Sutton, Ph.D. to Comply with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is GRANTED.

Defendants move for an order to compel compliance with a subpoena for deposition and production of documents served on plaintiff’s retained expert, Amy Sutton, Ph.D. Dr. Sutton was included on plaintiff’s retained expert witness list dated June 3, 2013. (Liebhaber Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit A.) According to the designation, Dr. Sutton “is expected to testify concerning his [sic] examination of the Plaintiff’s injuries, causation, nature and extent of the injuries, her review of the medical records pertaining to Plaintiff ODETA ZOGRABYAN, evaluation of plaintiff’s rehabilitation potential and future care and needs.” Ibid.

Although defendants have attempted to depose Dr. Sutton and obtain her records and reports from June 28, 2013 to the present, plaintiff and Dr. Sutton have not complied. (Liebhaber Decl., ¶¶ 5-14.) As a result, defendants served Dr. Sutton with a deposition subpoena for production of business records on January 8, 2014 (Liebhaber Decl., ¶ 12) and now seek the court’s help in enforcing it through this motion to compel. Trial is set for April 28, 2014.
CCP § 2020.010 states a deposition for production of business records and things may be used to obtain discovery from a person within the state who is not a party. Pursuant to CCP § 2020.220(c), personal service is effective to require the deponent to produce “[a]ny specified production, inspection, testing, and sampling.” Defendants’ subpoena was accepted by Jo King, “authorized person to accept service” for Dr. Sutton at the address provided by plaintiff in the expert witness list on January 8, 2014. (Liebhaber Decl., ¶ 12, Exhibit H.) In addition, CCP § 2020.240 states:

A deponent who disobeys a deposition subpoena in any manner described in subdivision (c) of Section 2020.220 may be punished for contempt under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) without the necessity of a prior order of court directing compliance by the witness. The deponent is also subject to the forfeiture and the payment of damages set forth in Section 1992.

As defendants’ motion is unopposed, the parties are nearing trial, and defendants have offered substantial evidence of attempts to resolve this issue prior to filing this motion, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, and the court orders Dr. Sutton to comply with the deposition subpoena for production of business records within 10 days of the date of this order. In addition, the court awards monetary sanctions in the amount of $981.00 against Dr. Sutton to be paid to defendants and/or their counsel of record within 10 days of the date of this order.
Defendants are ordered to give notice.