Case Number: SC127249 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: O

SC127249

DENG v. STONE CANYON

Plaintiffs/X-Defendants Sophie Deng and Jie Zheng and non-party Ronni Massok’s Motion for Order Quashing Subpoena Pertaining to Ronni Massok is DENIED.

ANALYSIS: On 2/14/18, Defendants Stone Canyon Partners, LLC and Brion B. Applegate served a deposition subpoena on non-party Ronni Massok. The subpoena was untimely served only 9 days before the deposition date of 2/23/18. Massok is a jury consultant who has been working under the supervision and direction of Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiffs ask that the Court quash the deposition subpoena, as well as issue a protective order preventing the Defendants from attempting to subpoena her again. Plaintiffs’ notice of motion also goes further and asks that the Court impose a protective order prohibiting any contact with Massok.

In reply, Defendants explain that they subpoenaed Massok after she appeared at the deposition of Defendant Brion Applegate. She was never identified clearly by Plaintiffs and at the deposition of Pascacio Rosales, Defendants specifically inquired who Massok was. Plaintiffs’ counsel allegedly stated “[You’ll] see at the deposition.” Defendants contend Plaintiffs failed to properly identify Massok and they were “forced” to resort to subpoenaing her. The first time Plaintiffs informed Defendants of Massok’s identity and role in the action was in the 2/14/18 letter written in response to the deposition subpoena. Upon learning that Massok was a jury consultant, Defendants had no intention of pursuing the deposition subpoena.

The request to quash deposition subpoena is moot. Defendants concede that Massok should not be subject to deposition given that she is a jury consultant on the case. Defendants’ issuance of the deposition subpoena under these circumstances was in bad faith and an overreaction to Plaintiffs’ failure to be forthcoming in identifying Massok. Defendants did not informally or formally ask Plaintiffs after the Applegate deposition who Massok was. Instead, they issued a subpoena simply to find out what they could have determined by calling or sending a letter to Plaintiffs.

For this reason, the request to quash or modify the 2/14/18 subpoena is moot, because it has been withdrawn. The alternative request that a standing PO be issued preventing any attempts to contact Massok is also moot or denied. There is no need for such an order, as Defendant’s only reason for subpoenaing Massok was to determine her role in the litigation after she attended Applegate’s depo.

Defendants served the deposition subpoena to find out who Massok was, even though they could have simply asked Plaintiff in a phone call or letter. Plaintiffs informed Defendants after receiving the deposition subpoena by letter that Massok was the jury consultant. Defendants never withdrew the deposition in response, nor did they respond to that letter. Plaintiffs also failed to contact Defendants regarding the deposition subpoena prior to filing this motion. In light of these facts, both parties failed to act with substantial justification and no sanctions are imposed.