25CV00987, Jensen v. Syeda
- Introduction
Plaintiff’s motion for an order staying and quashing Defendants’ notices of deposition and subpoenas of Colleen Pedrazzi and Alan M. Pedrazzi is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for protective order is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Defendants’ request for sanctions against Plaintiff is DENIED.
Defendants’ counsel shall submit a written order consistent with this tentative ruling and in compliance with Rule 3.1312.
- Relevant Chronology
On July 3, 2025, Defendants served on Alan M. Pedrazzi (defendant in this action) a Notice of Taking Deposition and Request for Production of Documents scheduled for July 21, 2025. While Defendants have not herein produced a proof of service for this document, Defendants’ counsel declared under the penalty of perjury in his declaration that this notice was served on Mr. Pedrazzi personally at the Pedrazzi’s residence on July 3, 2025. An identical notice was served on that same date at the Pedrazzi’s residence for Colleen Pedrazzi (defendant in this action), though personal service was not effectuated upon her.
On Tuesday, July 8, 2025, Defendants’ counsel received an email from Alan Pedrazzi indicating that he and Colleen Pedrazzi had a scheduling conflict and were requesting that the depositions be rescheduled to a later time. Defendants’ counsel responded to Mr. Pedrazzi and inquired whether they would be available for depositions on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. He also informed Mr. Pedrazzi that Colleen Pedrazzi had not yet been personally served with her deposition subpoena and asked whether she would accept service via email. Mr. and Mrs. Pedrazzi agreed to accept service by email and confirmed their availability for the proposed date.
Defendants’ counsel subsequently served amended notices of deposition for both defendants and a subpoena for Colleen electronically via email on July 9, 2025, for depositions on July 29, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to both amended notices since she was unavailable on July 29th due to being in trial. Accordingly, Defendants electronically served second amended notices of the Pedrazzis’ depositions on July 29, 2025, for deposition to occur on August 4, 2025. A subpoena was again sent for Colleen Pedrazzi’s deposition but not for Alan’s. Plaintiff served objections to these notices on July 30th.
III. Plaintiff’s Motion
Plaintiff herein seeks to quash the notices of deposition sent to both Alan and Colleen Pedrazzi and the subpoena sent to Colleen Pedrazzi claiming that the notices were untimely and the subpoena was deficient. Plaintiff also seeks a protective order which orders that the depositions of Alan and Colleen Pedrazzi are not to be scheduled until after all parties have appeared in this matter.
- Subpoena to Colleen Pedrazzi
Plaintiff seeks to quash the subpoena directed to Colleen Pedrazzi on the grounds that the subpoena was procedurally defective and did not match the notice of deposition that was served with it. Plaintiff also argues that no subpoena was ever sent to Alan Pedrazzi. Defendants argue in opposition that the Pedrazzis are parties to this action; therefore, Defendants did not need to propound subpoenas to these deponents to compel their depositions. Plaintiff argues that the Pedrazzis are no longer parties to this action since Plaintiff entered a stipulated judgment with them.
It is true that Plaintiff and the Pedrazzis signed a stipulated judgment that was approved by the Court on June 26, 2025. However, the Pedrazzis have not been dismissed from the action. Furthermore, when Plaintiff amended her complaint on August 15, 2025, she still named the Pedrazzis as defendants and alleged causes of action against them. Therefore, they are still parties to this action. Defendants are correct that subpoenas were not necessary to require their appearance at their depositions. (CCP § 2025.280(a).)
Since CCP § 2025.280(a) provides that notices of depositions under Section 2025.240 are sufficient to require a deposition of a party, and since Colleen Pedrazzi is a party, the claimed deficiencies of the subpoena sent to her are immaterial. Therefore, even if Plaintiff had standing to raise the issue of procedural deficiencies sent to a party other than Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s arguments would not persuade the Court to quash the notice of deposition. The Notice of Taking Deposition that was sent to Colleen Pedrazzi was sufficient to require her appearance at her deposition. Furthermore, the fact that no subpoena was sent to Alan Pedrazzi does not effect the sufficiency of the Notice of Taking Deposition sent to him.
- Notices of Taking Deposition
Plaintiff argues that both notices of taking deposition sent to the Pedrazzis on July 29th should be quashed because they were untimely. They were served electronically only 6 days before the deposition date, though CCP § 2025.270(a) requires they be served at least 10 days prior, with an additional two court days for electronic service pursuant to CCP §1010.6.
The Court does not find this to be sufficient reason to quash the deposition notices. The Pedrazzis had received two deposition notices prior to the one sent on July 29th. Therefore, they were aware of Defendants’ intent to take their depositions. Furthermore, if the August 4th date was objectionable to Plaintiff’s counsel, it has now long since passed. The Court sees no compelling reason why the parties cannot meet and confer in good faith to find a date that works for everyone. Rather, the parties are ORDERED to do so.
Plaintiff also argues that the notices of deposition should be quashed because the pleadings are not yet settled and many defendants have not yet made appearances. This argument is not compelling because the defendants who have made appearances are entitled to conduct discovery, including depositions. Plaintiff has not provided anything more than speculation that conducting the Pedrazzis’ depositions at this stage in the proceedings would result in undue burden, expense, or hardship.
- Protective Order
Plaintiff requests that in addition to, or in the alternative of, quashing the notices of deposition, the Court issue a protective order staying the notices of depositions until all parties have appeared in the action. Plaintiff has not provided a compelling reason why such a protective order should be issued. As stated above, Plaintiff generally argues that the depositions being taken at this point in the proceedings would cause undue burden, expense, and hardship. The Court does remind the parties that deposition time limits do apply to parties or witnesses. CCP §2025.290(a). However, Plaintiff has not elaborated any further or submitted evidence that would support this argument. The parties are ORDERED to discuss these time limitations during the meet and confer process.
- Sanctions
Both parties request sanctions be imposed upon the other pursuant to CCP § 1987.2, which provides that the Court may, in its discretion, “award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” The Court notes that CCP § 1987.2 does not provide for sanctions, but for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. In any case, the Court does not find that the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification.
Plaintiff also seeks sanctions against Defendants under CCP §§ 2023.020 for failing to meet and confer in good faith and 2023.030 for misusing the discovery process. The Court does not find that Defendants failed to meet and confer in good faith or misused the discovery process.