2016-00191713-CU-BC

Hadeel Tayeb vs. Geico General Insurance Company

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Production of Business Records

Filed By: Kenna, Glenn M.

If requested, oral argument will take place on Monday January 22, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Department 53. If that date is not convenient, the parties may meet and confer on a later date and inform the court clerk of the date no later than 4:00 p.m. on January 18, 2018.

Defendant GEICO’s Motion to Compel Third-Party Custodian of Records of Central Auto, Inc. to Comply with a Subpoena for Production of Documents is unopposed, and is GRANTED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at Counsel for moving party is ordered to notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This motion was continued from Jan. 3, 2018 to today’s date Jan. 19, 2018, as the defendant’s Proof of Service on the third party against whom the order is to be enforced was drop boxed at the Court instead of filed at the Civil Filing window and was not timely received in this department.

On October 11, 2017, a registered process server served defendant’s Subpoena for the Production of Records on “John Doe” at Central Auto Inc. located at 3181 Fulton Avenue, Sacramento 95812 and also on the Agent for Service of Process Ronnie O. Jordan on Nov. 12, 2017. (Kenna Dec., paras. 6 -9, Exhs. C, D.) See, CRC 3.1346.

Plaintiff Tayeb’s First Amended Complaint sets forth causes of action against GEICO for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from the claims handling for alleged property damage to plaintiff’s insured Lexus.

The Business Records subpoena required Central Auto, Inc.’s production of “Any and all records in your custody or control pertaining to vehicle identification number: JTHGL46F87500865.” [the Lexus] See, CCP sec. 2020.010.

No objection to the subpoena by Central Auto, Inc. was received by GEICO. The Custodian of Records of Central Auto, Inc. failed to comply with the Subpoena at the date and time indicated. (Kenna Dec. paras. 10-11.)

Central Auto Inc. has continued to ignore GEICO’s attempts to arrange for copying of its records. The records that are sought by the Subpoena are relevant and material to

this action as they pertain to the alleged sales of and alleged repairs of the Lexus which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint for damages. The records are not privileged and are necessary to the defense of this action. (Kenna Dec. paras. 11-12.)

If a deposition subpoena commands only the production of business records for copying, the custodian of the records or other qualified person shall, in person, by messenger, or by mail, deliver both of the following only to the deposition officer specified in the subpoena: (1) A true, legible, and durable copy of the records. (2) An affidavit in compliance with Section 1561 of the Evidence Code. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.430 (a).)

The Court therefore orders that the Custodian of Records provide all documents responsive to the subpoena in Central Auto Inc.’s possession, custody or control to Knox Photocopy Service 1155 N. First Street, Suite 100, San Jose, California 95112, not later than Monday, January 29, 2018.