Nov 20, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS – FAMILY LAW DEPT. 20

LAW & MOTION

Thursday November 9, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.                                                                    

COURTROOM #20  Commissioner Becky Rasmason
(3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA)

THIS MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT. 23 BY JUDGE ROBERT S. BOYD

Tentative Rulings

The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6732 by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday November 8, 2017.  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.    

 

THURSDAY NOVEMBER 9, 2017 AT 9:30AM

COURTROOM 20

LAW AND MOTION

 

PLEASE NOTE: IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED THE HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE ON 11/9/2017 AT 9:30 a.m.  IN DEPT. 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SFL 62914 GREINER v. KELLER

Procedural defects by both parties have caused confusion in this matter that the court hopes will be resolved by summarizing the history related to the instant motion before the court.

The Respondent (Mother) filed a Request for Order (RFO) on 8/29/17 seeking to compel production of documents.  In her RFO, Mother refers to a Request for Production of Documents and cites various sections of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) that are related to inspection demands. However, Mother did not serve an inspection demand under CCP 2031.010.  Instead, she obtained and served a Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) under CCP 1985 et seq. The Petitioner (Father) responded to the Civil Subpoena by serving Mother with a Notice of Motion to Quash the Subpoena. However, when Father’s attorney filed the Notice of Motion to Quash, she crossed off the words “Notice of Motion” and replaced them with the word “Request”. The clerk filed this document in the court’s file as a “Declaration” on 6/13/17.  Father did not serve Mother with the modified document which changed the words. At the hearing on 6/28/17, Mother continued to refer to Father’s Motion to Quash and it took some time to figure out that an actual motion was not filed at all.  The court did not address the substantive issues related to Father’s failed attempt at a motion to quash because it was not timely served on Mother.

            Father is now claiming that Mother’s RFO to compel production of documents is untimely pursuant to CCP 2031.310(c). However, the 45 day time period to file a motion to compel commences upon service of a verified response.  There is no evidence before the court that a verified response was served. Father’s Responsive Declaration filed on 9/26/17 only refers to two letters (6/9/17 and 6/12/17) that Father’s attorney sent to Mother in response to her Subpoena. These letters do not start the 45 day time period for the filing a motion to compel.

            It appears from Mother’s RFO that she is seeking only the production of bank records from 1/1/17 to the present date.  Given that request, the court will not address any of the issues related to Mother’s previous request for medical records. For purposes of this tentative ruling, the court has construed Mother’s Civil Subpoena (Duces Tecum) as an inspection demand under CCP 2031.010. Not doing so would extend the acrimony in this case and cause other discovery methods to be implemented. 

            Mother’s RFO to compel Father’s un-redacted bank records from 1/1/17 to the present date is GRANTED. Father shall provide these bank records to Mother no later than 11/20/17. The court finds that the request for Father’s bank records is proper in that the production of these bank records is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

            Mother’s request for discovery sanctions is GRANTED. Father shall pay $1000 to Mother no later than 11/20/17. 

            Mother shall submit a proposed Order  to the court.

 

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County