Ivan Zuniga Hernandez vs Judith Share Bay

Case Number

24CV06332

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/09/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motions to Compel

Tentative Ruling

On September 30, 2025, defendant Judith Share Bay filed the following motions now set for hearing: (1) motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records from third party Rose Café, Inc.; and (2) motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of business records from third party Ichiban Sushi. Each of the subpoenas requests production of all employment records, including tax records, regarding plaintiff.

Both motions are insufficient and premature. In the memorandum in support of each motion, Bay states that each motion was “served by mail” on the respective deponent. (Motion re Rose Café, at p. 5; Motion re Ichiban Sushi, at p. 5.) In support of this service, the memorandum cites to the declaration of attorney Lori M. Cullman, which states only that the subpoena was “issued.” No proof of service of a subpoena is attached to either motion. Moreover, a deposition subpoena directed to a third party must be served by personal service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.220, subd. (b).) “Personal service is required, not service by mail.” (Edmon & Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 8:568, italics in original.) Neither motion therefore shows service of a subpoena effective to require compliance by either deponent. Both motions will be denied on that ground.

Additionally, the motions themselves do not show effective service. Notice of the motion must be served on the deponent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480, subd. (c).) The proof of service of each motion lists only service on plaintiff’s counsel and does not show service on the respective deponent. Because both motions are substantively defective, there is no need to continue the hearing to permit service of either motion.