2011-00101039-CU-PN
Mark Fields vs. John C Miller
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena
Filed By: Harmata, Donald D.
Non-Parties Donald D. Harmata (“Harmata”) and J.R. Pierce Plumbing Co., Inc. of
Sacramento’s (“J.R. Pierce”) motion to quash the trial subpoena served by Defendants
John C. Miller Jr. and Law Offices of John Miller (collectively “Miller”) is DENIED.
This is a legal malpractice action. In the instant action, Plaintiffs Mark and Adelyn
Fields (“Fields”) allege that Miller committed malpractice in an underlying construction
defect case, Fields v. Sycamore Ventures. The Fields allege that Miller committed
malpractice by, among others,: (1) convincing the Fields to dismiss defendants
Re/Max Gold and Nejadian in an effort to conceal the court’s order granting Re/Max Gold and Nejadian’s motion for terminating sanctions, and (2) failing to name
necessary parties. The action was dismissed in April 2012.
Miller served a trial subpoena on attorney Harmata, who represented J.R. Pierce in the
underlying construction defect case. According to Harmata, at the time J.R. Pierce
settled with the Fields, he had substituted out the case.
Trial is currently scheduled for June 30, 2014.
Harmata moves to quash the trial subpoena on the grounds that his testimony will
necessarily violate the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. The Court
disagrees. As an initial matter, Miller states in opposition that he will not seek to elicit
information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. To the
extent a question invades the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine,
Harmata may object at trial. Moreover, Harmata may testify on issues that are not
protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, such as the facts
and communications with the opposing parties.
Harmata further argues he does not have any relevant testimony because none of the
Fields’ allegations against Miller involve J.R. Pierce and that he does not have any
information related to the settlement negotiations because he had been substituted
out. The Court, however, cannot predict Miller’s line of questioning and essentially
asks the Court to “rule in a vacuum.” The Court declines to do so.
Harmata lastly argues that the trial subpoena is duplicative of the documents he
produced in response to the Fields’ subpoena for production of business records. The
Court disagrees that the trial subpoena is duplicative. Indeed, the Fields’ deposition
sought documents relating to communications between Harmata and Miller. However,
there may be instances wherein Harmata and Miller verbally communicated, without
any written documentation. Moreover, Harmata may have information regarding
matters that are not related to his communications with Miller.
Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.