Motion to Compel compliance with subpoenas; Request for Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/08/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE 3 24CV443623 Riley's Remodeling & Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint Design, Inc. vs. Defendants’ motion for Leave to File Cross Complaint, field Joseph Shaw et al 1/23/26. Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Plaintiff. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Good Cause Appearing, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.
Defendant to prepare the final order, accompanied by Form EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.
LINE 4 25CV457958 John Susino Demurrer vs. Safeway Inc. et al Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is Unopposed and Sustained with 15 days leave to amend.
LINE 5 25CV462561 Jane Doe vs Hearing: Demurrer Wanderlust Trust et al Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 5 LINE 6 25CV471073 John Doe L.M., an Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel compliance with subpoenas for individual, vs Craig production of business records Chandler et al Please scroll down to Line 6
Calendar Line 6 Case Name: John Doe L.M. vs Craig Chandler, et al. Case No.: 25CV471073
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office’s Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Business Records and Request for Sanctions
At the outset, the Court notes that the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office (“SCCDAO”) did not file a formal opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. However, the absence of an opposition does not automatically entitle Plaintiff to the relief requested. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the requested order is authorized and appropriate under the applicable legal standards. The Court further notes that Plaintiff’s moving papers attach correspondence reflecting the SCCDAO’s position concerning the subpoena. Although those communications do not constitute a formal opposition, they provide context regarding the nature of the dispute presented, which appears to concern primarily the legal scope of a nonparty deposition subpoena for production of business records.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff served a deposition subpoena for production of business records seeking the SCCDAO’s complete criminal investigative and prosecutorial file concerning Defendant Chandler, including materials originating from other agencies, such as police reports, search warrant materials, witness interviews, forensic examinations, school records, 911 calls, and audio/video evidence. The SCCDAO produced documents it contends are within its custodial responsibility, including charging documents, case summary materials, certain crime laboratory materials, and discovery transmittal documentation. The SCCDAO declined to produce materials created and maintained by other agencies, asserting that it is not the custodian of records for those materials and cannot provide the required certification under Evidence Code section 1561.
Plaintiff contends that the SCCDAO’s reliance on Evidence Code section 1561 and Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039 is misplaced because authentication requirements concern admissibility rather than discovery, and because the relevant inquiry is whether the records are within the SCCDAO’s possession, custody, or control.
The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s argument that evidentiary authentication requirements do not necessarily resolve all questions concerning discoverability. However, Plaintiff’s subpoena was directed to the SCCDAO as a nonparty custodian of business records. The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has established that the SCCDAO may be compelled, through this subpoena procedure, to produce and authenticate records created and maintained by separate governmental entities merely because those records were reviewed, received, or utilized during a criminal prosecution.
The issue before the Court is not whether the requested materials may ultimately be discoverable from an appropriate source. Rather, the issue is whether Plaintiff has demonstrated that the SCCDAO failed to comply with a deposition subpoena for production of business records by declining to produce records for which it asserts it is not the custodian of records.
On the present record, Plaintiff has not established that the SCCDAO’s response was improper. The motion is therefore DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,060 is DENIED. The Court finds that the dispute presents a legitimate legal issue concerning the scope of a nonparty business records subpoena and the application of Evidence Code section 1561. The SCCDAO’s position, as reflected in the correspondence submitted by Plaintiff, was not shown to be unreasonable or made in bad faith.
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer regarding any remaining disputed categories of documents.
The Court will prepare the Order.