Evangeline Johnson, et al. v. County of Los Angeles

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 415) August 31, 2026 DEPARTMENT 415 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: August 31, 2026 TRIAL DATE: March 2, 2027 CASE: Evangeline Johnson, et al. v. County of Los Angeles CASE NO.: 23STCV04115 MOTION TO ENFORCE SUBPOENA MOVING PARTY/PARTIES: Defendant County of Los Angeles RESPONDING PARTY/PARTIES: None PROOF OF SERVICE: · Correct Address: Yes · Served electronically on May 7, 2026 for a hearing date of August 31, 2026.

CASE HISTORY: · February 24, 2023: Complaint filed. · May 5, 2026: Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: Plaintiffs Evangeline Johnson, Winford Carter II, and Love Carter ("Plaintiffs") sued Defendant County of Los Angeles ("Defendant") based on the death of Decedent Winford Joseph Carter ("Decedent"). Plaintiffs allege that Decedent died while Defendant was in custody at Defendant's Twin Towers jail facility. Defendant moves to enforce a subpoena for the production of business records that Defendant served on Deponent T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("Deponent"). The subpoena seeks Decedent's cell phone records.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant's motion to enforce the subpoena is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to enforce subpoena Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides, "If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party or a witness] . . . may make an order . . . directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1987.1.)

Defendant personally served the subpoena on Deponent on February 10, 2026 via Deponent's agent for service of process. (Declaration of Patrick J, Estabrook, Exhibit 2.) Defendant did not personally serve the motion on Deponent. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1346.) However, Deponent's counsel conferred with Defendant regarding the subpoena via email, and indicated that Defendant would not oppose a motion to compel Deponent to comply with the subpoena. Accordingly, the Court concludes Deponent waived personal service of the motion.

Neither Plaintiffs nor Deponent objected to the subpoena. Instead, Deponent represented to Defendant that Deponent would not comply with the subpoena absent a court order requiring Deponent to do so. (Declaration of Patrick J, Estabrook, Exhibit 3.) Deponent's refusal to comply with the subpoena absent a court order does not justify Deponent's failure to comply with the subpoena. Deponent fails to identify any legally cognizable basis to excuse its compliance with the subpoena.

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to enforce the subpoena is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 31, 2026 ___________________________________ Rolf M. Treu Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at [email protected] by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.

Case Number: 23STCV28078 Hearing Date: August 31, 2026 Dept: 415 Tentative Ruling Judge Rolf M. Treu, Department 415 HEARING DATE: August