CLJ209019 YVETTE NAROG VS. STEVEN HOSKINS, ET AL.

YVETTE NAROG STEVEN HOSKINS SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
PRO/PER
JOSEPH F. CHARLES

SAN MATEO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE’S MOTION TO QUASH CIVIL SUBPOENA FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT TRIAL OR HEARING OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TENTATIVE RULING:

The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office’s Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance at Trial or Hearing Or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order, filed 2-13-19, which includes a request for attorney’s fees, is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIEDIN-PART, as set forth below.

Plaintiff has not filed any “Opposition” per se, but on 2-19-19, filed and served (by regular mail) a document stating Plaintiff “Objects” to the DA’s Motion to Quash. Even if this document had been formatted and entitled properly, Plaintiff served it by regular mail, which violates Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b), requiring service by overnight delivery. The Court, however, will not belabor these procedural issues because there are adequate substantive grounds to grant the DA’s motion.

The Motion to Quash is GRANTED. The subpoena is QUASHED IN ITS ENTIRETY, for at least the following reasons. First, Plaintiff has not filed a Proof of Service (POS) indicating proper service of the subpoena. See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987(a); Govt. Code § 68097.1. Second, even if proper service had been demonstrated, the evidence indicates the District Attorney has no personal knowledge of the case, making the subpoena improper for the reasons stated in the moving papers. See 2-13-19 Motion at pp. 4-5. Further, and as independent grounds for quashing the subpoena, Plaintiff’s stated objective/purpose in serving the subpoena is to compel the District Attorney to “prosecute Annette Hoskins for criminal acts.” RJN, Ex. B, p. 1, § 2. The DA’s office has substantial discretion in deciding whether to initiate and conduct (or not conduct) prosecutions for all public offences. See Govt. Code § 26500; People v. Parmar (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 781, 807. For at least these reasons, the subpoena is improper.

Given the granting of the Motion to Quash, the DA’s alternative Motion for Protective Order is DENIED AS MOOT.

All requests for attorney’s fees are DENIED. The District Attorney argues Plaintiff had no valid basis for attempting to serve the subpoena, and forced the DA’s office to incur the time and expense of bringing this motion. See 2-13-19 Charles Decl. Under the circumstances and in its discretion, the Court declines to grant sanctions at this time.
Plaintiff’s and the DA’s Requests for Judicial Notice of various portions of the Court’s file are GRANTED. Evid. Code § 452(d). Plaintiff’s RJN of documents recorded with the County Recorder is GRANTED. Evid. Code § 452(c). As to the aforementioned documents, judicial notice is taken of the fact they were filed, and their contents, but not as to the truth of any allegations/statements therein. All other Requests for Judicial Notice are DENIED for failure to identify the statutory basis for the request. See also CRC 3.113(l) (RJNs must be made in a separate document).
To the extent it has not already been made clear, the Court reminds the parties that nonattorneys may not represent parties in Court. Parties may represent themselves and/or may be represented by their counsel of record. See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125 (“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.”); Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545 (“under [§ 6125], one who is not a licensed attorney cannot appear in court for another person”).

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for The San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.