2017-00220939-CL-PT

Charmayn Fale vs. Stephanie Reyes

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Compel Stephanie Reyes to Comply with Subpoena

Filed By: Fale, Charmayn

Plaintiff Chantal Fale’s Motion to Compel Compliance with an administrative subpoena is unopposed and is GRANTED.

By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to enforce an administrative subpoena from the Department of Industrial Relations, issued by a deputy Labor Commissioner, in Plaintiff’s claim against her former employer, Key Craze, Inc. The subpoena, issued on August 25, 2017, calls for the presence and testimony of Ms. Stephanie Reyes, whom Plaintiff identifies as having information and evidence that would support her claims. According to Plaintiff’s sworn statement, Ms. Reyes appeared at the hearing as required by the subpoena but refused to be sworn in and testify as a witness.

Following Ms. Reyes’ refusal to testify, the hearing DLSE hearing officer continued the hearing and directed Plaintiff to pursue Ms. Reyes’ compliance with the subpoena in this Court.

Labor Code section 92 provides: “[t]he Labor Commissioner, his deputies and agents, may issue subpenas [sic] to compel the attendance of witnesses and parties and the production of books, papers and records; administer oaths; examine witnesses under oath; take the verification, acknowledgment, or proof of written instruments; and take depositions and affidavits for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this code and all laws which the division is to enforce.” (See also Labor Code § 74 [permitting the DLSE to issue “subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses”].) Labor Code section 93 provides that enforcement of obedience to those subpoenas issued by the Labor Commissioner “shall be enforced by the Courts.” (See Craib v. Bulmash (1989) 49 Cal.3d 475 [recognizing ability of the superior courts to enforce DLSE administrative subpoenas]; see also Labor Code § 74 [“[o]bedience to subpoenas shall be enforced by the Courts.”].)

There is no dispute that the DLSE subpoena, issued by a deputy labor commissioner, is valid. There apparently also is no dispute that Ms. Reyes received the subpoena since she appeared at the hearing. Ms. Reyes, however, refused to testify even though she was directed to do so by the subpoena and even though she was afforded three opportunities to do so by the hearing officer. In light of these facts, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance is appropriate. Code of Civil Procedure section 2064 provides, in relevant part, that “[a] witness, served with a subpoena, must attend at the time appointed … and answer all pertinent and legal questions; and, unless sooner discharged, must remain until the testimony is closed.” The failure of a subpoenaed witness to meet this obligation may be punished as contempt. (See CCP § 1991.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and ORDERS that Stephanie Reyes comply with the subpoena issued. Plaintiff may, through the Labor Commissioner, issue an amended subpoena with a new date and time for hearing to obtain Ms. Reyes’ testimony; this Order shall govern any subpoena that amended to reflect the new date and time for the continued hearing. Should Ms. Reyes fail to comply with this order and refuse to testify at the continued hearing, Plaintiff is directed to return to this Court and seek an order to show cause re: contempt.

Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve a copy of this Minute Order on Ms. Reyes. In addition, Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide a copy of this Minute Order to all Parties and the hearing officer in the underlying DLSE case. Plaintiff shall provide proof of service on all of the foregoing persons and entities within thirty (30) days from the date of this Minute Order.