JEFERSON ALEXIS ZECENA CANO, ET AL VS. GPI BUILDERS INC., ET AL

July 24, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________

02:00 PM LINE 4 24-CIV-01161 JEFERSON ALEXIS ZECENA CANO, ET AL VS. GPI BUILDERS INC., ET AL

JEFERSON ALEXIS ZECENA CANO T P SKINNER GPI BUILDERS INC. SARIT SIMHAYOFF-COEHN

Motion to Compel T-Mobile to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed Motion to Compel T-Mobile U.S., Inc.’s Compliance with Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by plaintiff Jeferson Alexis Zecena Cano is GRANTED.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants misclassified him as an independent contractor when they employed him for three remodeling projects, and failed to reimburse him for expenses related thereto, resulting in numerous violations of employment law.

Plaintiff has moved for a court order compelling non-party T-Mobile U.S., Inc. to produce documents responsive to the civil subpoena duces tecum which he served upon it.

On November 21, 2025, plaintiff served a subpoena on T-Mobile seeking his own phone records. (Skinner Decl., ¶ 4, & exh. A). T-Mobile objected on January 5, 2026. (Id., ¶ 5, & exh. B.)

T-Mobile refused to produce the documents, but indicated that it would comply with a subpoena that was accompanied by a valid court order. T-Mobile’s objection appears primarily to be that since the target phone numbers are those of a subscriber in California, the subpoena is void unless accompanied by the accountholder’s consent. (Skinner Decl., exh. B at p. 9.) However, the subpoena did include such consent. (Id., exh. A, at p. 7.) Nonetheless, the objection clearly states that, “COURT ORDER REQUIRED FOR RELEASE OF RECORDS.” (Id., exh. B, at p. 9.)

There is good cause to compel the production of the requested documents.

The documents are pertinent to showing the relationship between plaintiff and defendant Bennaim, if any. Bennaim denies knowing or communicating with plaintiff. (Skinner Decl., ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff also asserts that he owns the phone number and account with T-Mobile, and created the records. The court notes that the subpoena actually seeks the records of two phone numbers described as assigned to plaintiff, and includes but is not limited to calls to a specified third phone number (Skinner Decl., exh. A, at p. 6), which presumably belongs to defendant Bennaim.

July 24, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff further asserts that he has authorized the subpoena for his own records, which is shown. (Skinner Decl., exh. A, at p. 7.) Plaintiff argues that he would be burdened by undue delay, and that T-Mobile’s failure to respond properly to his subpoena has deprived him of the right to pretrial discovery.

Neither T-Mobile nor any party has opposed the motion. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The court orders T-Mobile to produce the requested records within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of the formal order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.