Jane Doe v. Patrick Healy CASE NO. 114CV261573
DATE: 6 June May 2014 TIME: 9:00 LINE NUMBER: 25
This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 5 June 2014. Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 6 June 2014, the motion of defendant Patrick Healy (“Defendant”) for an order directing compliance of Sheraton Palo Alto Hotel (“Sheraton”), with a subpoena duces tecum was argued and submitted. Plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) did not file formal opposition to the motion.

All parties are reminded that all papers must comply with Rule of Court 3.1110(f).

Statement of Facts

This is an action to compel the Witness to produce certain records for the Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant drugged and sexually assaulted her while she was staying at the Sheraton Palo Alto Hotel on March 7 and 8, 2012. Plaintiff is a resident of Manhattan, New York. She was in Santa Clara County on business at the time of the alleged assault. Defendant is a resident of Maryland and was a visitor in Santa Clara County at the same time. Plaintiff and Defendant met at the hotel bar of the Sheraton where Defendant purchased two glasses of wine for Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged that the wine contained a drug of unknown substance which caused her to blackout and allowed the Defendant to gain unauthorized access to her hotel room. Plaintiff regained consciousness in the early morning of March 8, 2014 and found the Plaintiff sexually assaulting her.

Discovery Dispute

On 3 April 2014, the Defendant issued the subject subpoena to Sheraton for a production date of 29 April 2014. A Notice to Consumer was also sent to the Plaintiff on the same day. Plaintiff did not assert any objection to the requested materials on the subpoena. Sheraton did not raise a formal objection, but responded by stating that no materials relating to the Plaintiff will be provided unless the Plaintiff gives permission or a court order.

Analysis

Defendant moves for an order to compel Sheraton to produce business record materials relevant to the matters put in issue by the pleadings on the grounds that neither the Plaintiff nor Sheraton raised any objections to the material sought, but that Sheraton is requesting an authorization or court order.

Defendant cites Code of Civil Procedure, § 1987.1 as the sole basis of their motion. Under the section, if a subpoena requires a witness to produce books, documents, electronically store information or other things at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] may make an order directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court shall declare. A party in the action, witness, or consumer can make a motion asking to the court to quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. The court may also make any other order to appropriately protect a person from unreasonable or oppressive demands.

Under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1985.3, any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum.

On April 3, 2014, Defendant properly served the Plaintiff both the subpoena and notice. The subpoena had a production date of April 29, 2014. Plaintiff did not object to any of the materials sought or bring a motion to quash the subpoena prior to the production date. Sheraton requested a court order to produce the materials, but did not otherwise object to the content of the material sought. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Order

Defendant’s motion to compel the Witness for the production of business record is GRANTED.