QIAN & NEMECEK LLP VS. ROCK CLAPPER ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Monday, September 29, 2025, Line 4. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] PLAINTIFF QIAN & NEMECEK LLP's Motion To Compel Compliance By Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. With Subpoena And For Monetary Sanctions.

Judgment creditor Qian & Nemecek LLP's motion to compel compliance by Wells Fargo Bank N.A. with its deposition subpoena is denied. The motion here turns on whether Wells Fargo timely objected to the subpoena and whether its objection, that Qian & Nemecek is not a qualified deposition officer, has merit.

Code of Civil Procedure, section 2020.420 ("Section 2020.420"), provides: "The officer for a deposition seeking discovery only of business records for copying under this article shall be a professional photocopier registered under [Business and Professions Code, sections 22450 et seq.], or a person exempted from the registration requirements of that chapter under Section 22451 of the Business and Professions Code [("Section 22451")]. This deposition officer shall not be financially interested in the action, or a relative or employee of any attorney of the parties. Any objection to the qualifications of the deposition officer is waived unless made before the date of production or as soon thereafter as the ground for that objection becomes known or could be discovered by reasonable diligence."

The first sentence of the statute says a deposition officer can be a professional photocopier or an exempt person. Section 22451 includes a lawyer as an exempt person. The second sentence of the statute says that the deposition officer cannot have a financial interest in the action. Under the plain and straightforward language of the statute, Qian & Nemecek is not qualified to be a deposition officer in this case because it has a financial interest in the action. Nothing in Section 22451's exemptions override the independent language of the second sentence of Section 2020.420. Wells Fargo's objection thus has merit.

In addition, the objection was timely. The third sentence of Section 2020.420 states in part that an objection to the deposition officer's qualifications must be made before the date of production. Qian & Nemecek's deposition notice stated that the production date was June 27, 2025. (Nemecek Decl., Ex. F.) Wells Fargo objected on June 16, 2025. (Taylor Decl., para. 7 & Ex. A.) Although the Taylor Declaration does not provide a proof of service, Taylor's declaration adequately attests to Wells Fargo's custom and practice concerning service by mail of subpoena objections.

The court has decided the objection on its merits and does not reach the motion-timeliness issue raised by Wells Fargo in order to provide guidance to the parties moving forward. The court denies Qian & Nemecek's sanctions request. [End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |