This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 2 October 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 3 October 2014, the motion of Plaintiff Francine Stevens to order the release of documents produced pursuant to subpoena duces tecum was argued and submitted. Defendant Richard Smith Noonan filed a formal opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(f).[1]

I.       Statement of Facts

Plaintiff Francine Stevens (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, on 15 July 2011, defendant Richard Smith Noonan (“Defendant”) negligently rear ended the bus on which Plaintiff was a passenger.

On 25 June 2013, Plaintiff filed a Judicial Council form complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for (1) negligence—motor vehicle, and (2) general negligence. On 4 November 2013, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On 17 April 2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved. Plaintiff is now self-represented.

II.      Discovery Dispute

On 18 August 2014, Plaintiff issued a trial subpoena duces tecum to Defendant and Defendant’s counsel seeking Defendant’s medical records and Defendant’s Authorization for Release of Medical Records. The trial subpoena duces tecum directs Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to produce the records on 3 October 2014.

On 18 August 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion entitled, “Motion to Release Produced Pursuant to Sub poena Dueces Teccum [sic]” purportedly seeking to compel Defendant and Defendant’s counsel to produce the documents requested in the subpoena duces tecum.

On 22 September 2014, Defendant filed an opposition to the motion.

III.     Discussion

         A.  Trial Subpoena Duces Tecum

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff’s use of a trial subpoena duces tecum is premature as a trial in this matter has not been scheduled.

Even if the court treated Plaintiff’s trial subpoena duces tecum as a deposition subpoena duces tecum, Defendant correctly argues in opposition that Plaintiff has not complied with the special procedural requirements for seeking personal records of a consumer. (See Code Civ. Proc., §1985.3.) Moreover, Plaintiff prematurely filed this motion to compel on 18 August 2014 as the date for production is not until 3 October 2014. (See Code Civ. Proc., §2025.480; see also Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123.) For these reasons alone, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is defective and, therefore, DENIED.

This Court is not insensitive to the hardships placed on pro se litigants, even if they are experienced. Trial Courts are given broad discretion to consider motions and the nature of the motion is determined by the relief sought, not specific words contained therein. (See Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. 128 Cal.App.4th 187, 193, 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 790.)

Although a judge should ensure that self-represented litigants are not being misled or unfairly treated (see Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284), self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment with regard to the Rules of Court or Code of Civil Procedure. “[W]e cannot disregard the applicable principles of law and accord defendant any special treatment because he instead elected to proceed in propria persona. [Citations.]” (Stein v. Hassen (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 294, 303.) “A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney [citation] ‘but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts.’” (Lombardi v. Citizens Nat’l Trust & Sav. Bank (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 206, 208-209.)

Therefore, a self-represented litigant is held to the same standards as an attorney. (Id.; see also Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apts. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1262, 1264 [mistake in judgment in representing oneself not considered excusable neglect].)  When a litigant is appearing in propria persona, he or she is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444; see also Kobaysahi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543; Rappleyea v. Campell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

IV.     Conclusion and Order

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena duces tecum is DENIED.

[1] “Each exhibit must be separated by a hard 81/2 x 11 sheet with hard paper or plastic tabs extending below the bottom of the page, bearing the exhibit designation. An index to exhibits must be provided. Pages from a single deposition and associated exhibits must be designated as a single exhibit.”