Case Number: BC654562 Hearing Date: March 14, 2018 Dept: 92

TINA LOUISE GONZALES,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

WHOLE GOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC., AND DOES 1 TO 40

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: BC654562

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 14, 2018

The Motion of Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records against Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company is GRANTED.

The Motion of Defendant Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market to Compel Compliance with Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records against Providence St. Joseph Center is DENIED.

BACKGROUND FACTS

On March 17, 2017, plaintiff Tina Louise Gonzales (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Mrs. Gooch’s Natural Food Markets, Inc. dba Whole Foods Market (“Defendant”), alleging Plaintiff was injured on March 21, 2015 due to Defendant’s failure to maintain the subject premises in a safe condition. (Compl. ¶¶ 5-6, 11.)

On January 26, 2018, Defendant moved to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records against Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company (“Aetna”) and Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (“Providence”). Neither Aetna nor Providence opposed Defendant’s motions.

Legal Standard

“The Civil Discovery Act [] (§ 2016.010 et seq,) authorizes a nonparty’s ‘oral deposition,’ ‘written deposition,’ and ‘deposition for [the] production of business records.’ (§ 2020.010, subd. (a)(1)-(3)).” (Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item, and shall specify the form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced, if a particular form is desired.” (CCP § 2020.410(a).)

“If a deponent fails to produce a requested document under his or her control, the subpoenaing party may bring a motion to compel production ‘no later than 60 days after the completion of the record of the deposition.’ ” (Unzipped Apparel, LLC, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at 127 [emphasis omitted] [quoting CCP § 2025.480(b)].) The motion “shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (CCP § 2025.480(b).)

DISCUSSION

a. Meet and Confer

A party moving to compel production of documents from a nonparty must file a declaration stating “facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (CCP §§ 2016.040, 2025.480(b).) Defendant has demonstrated a sufficient attempt to meet and confer with respect to the issues presented in its motion against Aeta. (Ana Vasquez Decl. (Aeta), ¶¶ 12-13.)

However, Defendant’s declaration fails to state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt to informally resolve the issues presented in its motion against Providence. Defendant’s declaration accompanying its motion against Providence states that, “[t]o date, and despite the deposition officer’s attempt to meet and confer and follow up on the production due, Providence has not produced any responsive documents and has indicated that it is not permitted to release records based on plaintiff’s attorney’s objections.” (Ana Vasquez Decl. (Providence), ¶ 12.) Here, the “deposition officer” refers to Titan Legal Services (“Titan”). (Motion to Compel (Providence), Exh. B [Deposition Subpoena].) Titan prepared a declaration regarding the events that transpired during its efforts to obtain the documents from Providence. (Titan’s “Declaration of Due Diligence.”) However, Titan’s declaration does not show any efforts made to discuss and informally resolve any of the issues presented in Defendant’s motion against Providence. Titan’s declaration only recounts its attempts to obtain the subject documents from Providence. None of the facts put forth in Titan’s declaration establishes any attempt to meet and confer.

The Court therefore DENIES the motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records against Providence.

b. Demand for Production of Documents against Aetna

Here, Defendant’s subpoena directed to Aetna requested it to produce the following: (1) “Any and all policies and/or contracts of insurance through which Tina Louise Gonzales . . . was insured at any time during the period of March 21, 2008 through the present and that reflect the extent of coverage provided, the extent of the insured’s responsibilities, any and all damages qualifications, and a description of the type of activity and peril covered”; and (2) “Any and all EOBs (i.e., explanation of benefits), claims payments, invoices, statements, provider information, applications, liens, and any and all other records and WRITINGS from 2008 through the present relating to claims made, adjustments, and benefits paid for medical services rendered to Tina Louise Gonzales . . . .” (Motion to Compel (Aeta), Exh. B [Deposition Subpoena, Attachment 3].)

The court finds that each category of item specified by Defendant is reasonably particularized and the requested documents therein may lead to discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Plaintiff has stated that she had a prior injury involving the same part of her body, her lower back, that she alleges was injured in this matter. (Motion to Compel (Aeta), Exh. A [Response to Form Interrogatory No. 10.1].) Thus, documents relating to Plaintiff’s insurance policies, claims made, adjustments, and benefits paid are pertinent for Defendant to assess the issues of causation and damages as to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

Aetna did not challenge Defendant’s deposition subpoena, and no opposition to this motion has been filed.

The Court therefore GRANTS the motion to compel compliance with deposition subpoena for production of business records against Aetna.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice