Jane Doe v. Patrick Healy CASE NO. 114CV261573
DATE: 27 June 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 26
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 12 June 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 13 June 2014, the motion of Defendant Patrick Healy (Defendant) for an order directing compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records from the Palo Alto Police Department (Witness) was argued and submitted.

Plaintiff did not file formal opposition to the motion.

Statement of Facts

This action arises out of Plaintiff Jane Doe also known as Margaret Morton’s (Plaintiff) allegations that Defendant committed sexual battery, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and assault. Plaintiff’s complaint was filed March 4, 2014.

Plaintiff was visiting Palo Alto, California for business. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on March 7, 2012 Plaintiff checked in at the Sheraton Hotel in Palo Alto. That night Plaintiff went to the hotel bar where she met Defendant. Plaintiff claims that Defendant bought Plaintiff two glasses of wine. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant drugged her with an unknown substance causing her to black out, to possibly lose consciousness, and to forget many events that followed.

The last thing Plaintiff remembers before blacking out is taking a few sips of the second glass of wine Defendant bought for her and then she began to fee nauseous. [Complaint, ¶ 10 ].

Plaintiff claims that at some point early in the morning on March 8, 2012 she regained consciousness and realized she was naked on her hotel room bed and Defendant was sexually assaulting and battering her by performing unwanted sexual acts. Plaintiff alleges that she was unable to tell Defendant to stop because she was unable to physically or verbally respond due to being drugged the night before. [Complaint, ¶ 12]

Plaintiff was awakened the next morning by a wakeup call and she claims Defendant was lying next to her unclothed . Plaintiff claims she has no recollection of her or Defendant getting into bed. Plaintiff alleges that she never gave consent to Defendants actions. Plaintiff passed out again and when she awoke later Defendant was gone. {Complaint, ¶¶ 14, 16.}

Plaintiff claims that she suffered from severe nausea and could not recall most of the night after her first glass of wine. After flying back home to New York, Plaintiff visited St. Luke’s Hospital in Manhattan and underwent a four hour SART exam on March 10, 2012. [Complaint, ¶ 18.]Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount according to proof, but no less than $1,000,000.

On March 28, 2014 Defendant generally denied each and every allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint.

On May 7, 2014 Defendant filed a motion for an order enforcing compliance with subpoena duces tecum issued and served on Sheraton Palo Alto requiring the production of certain records and things.

Discovery Dispute

On April 3, 2014 Defendant served the Witness with a deposition subpoena for the production of business records.

On June 3, 2014 Defendant filed this motion for an order enforcing compliance with the deposition subpoena for production of business records issued and served on Palo Alto Police Department (Witness) on April 3, 2014. This motion seeks copies from the Witness concerning the alleged incident between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant seeks production of copies of physical evidence and materials seized during the investigation, any and all forensic analysis reports conducted on evidence seized, any and all of Plaintiff’s medical records regarding the incident, any and all blood analysis results taken from Plaintiff, SART report, and all photographs taken in connection with this investigation.

Plaintiff has not objected to the materials sought from the Witness. The Witness did not object to the subpoena but requested either an authorization by Plaintiff or a court order. Defendants have filed this motion to seek a court order to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena for business records.

Analysis

Defendant seeks a court order to compel the Witness to comply with Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for production of business records.

If a subpoena requires the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by a party may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1987.1(a); 1987.1(b)(1).

A deposition for production of business records may be used to obtain discovery from a person who is not a party to the action in which the discovery is sought. CCP § 2020.010(a)(3).

If the court determines that the answer or production sought is subject to discovery, it shall order that the answer be given or the production be made on the resumption of the deposition. CCP § 2025.480(i).

Under § 2017.010 any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

There is no requirement that on a motion to compel a nonparty to comply with a deposition subpoena for document production that the subpoenaing party must provide an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for production of the records. CCP § 2020.410(c).

A written notice of this motion shall be given to all other parties to the action. CCP § 2025.480(c). The motion to compel must be made no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition. CCP § 2025.480(b).

Here, the Defendant’s motion is within the 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition which was April 29, 2014. The Defendant has also provided proof of service for the deposition subpoena on the Witness as well as for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant has not received any opposition or response from Plaintiff concerning the deposition subpoena. The Witness does not object to the subpoena but only requests that the Defendant get a court order or authorization by Plaintiff before the Witness will produce the business records.

The Defendant has provided an argument for good cause for the materials sought. The Defendant has established that the records sought concerning Plaintiff’s sexual assault forensic exams are relevant to issues raised by Plaintiff in her pleading and are therefore matters that are discoverable.

Order

Defendant’s motion to enforce Witness’s compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records is GRANTED. Said records are to be produced within 20 days of the date of the filing of this Order.