On October 02, 2020 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Cerda Trujillo, Abraham,
and
Benitez Jr., Alex John,
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. Registered Owner,
for Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
TUCKER ELLIS LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
MOLLIE F. BENEDICT SBN 187084 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT
mollie.benedict@tuckerellis.com 1 0/9’ 2 0 2 3 12.'3 1 PM
AGGIE B. LEE SBN 228332
aggie.lee@tuckerellis.com By: Brianna Johnson, DEPUTY
KAITLYN N. PANGBURN SBN 336346
.p kaitlyn.pangbum@tuckerellis.com
515 South Flower Street
Forty-Second Floor
QOUI
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: 213.430.3400
Facsimile: 213.430.3409
Attorneys for Defendants
ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. and FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
HOLDINGS, INC.
Louis
St. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
0
Francisco
11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
12
San
LLP
9
Angeles
13 ABRAHAM CERDA TRUJILLO, an Case N0. CIV DS 2020893
individual,
ELLIS
Los
14 Assigned t0 the Hon. Winston Keh
O Plaintiff,
15 DEFENDANTS ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. AND
TUCKER
Columbus
V. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS,
16 INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
9 ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR., Driver; QUASH NON-PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
Cleveland
17 FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
INC, Registered Owner; and DOES through1 OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY
O 18 50, Inclusive,
[Filed concurrently with Declaration ofMollie F.
Chicago
19 Defendants. Benedict]
20 Date: October 16, 2023
Time: 8:30 am.
21 Dept. S33
22 Complaint Filed: October 2, 2020
Trial Date: September 25, 2024
23
AND RELATED CROSS ACTION.
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH NON—PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants Alex John Benitez, Jr. (“Benitez”) and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
(“Fresenius”) (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court quash the Non-Party
Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records 0f American Building Supply issued by
Plaintiff Abraham Cerda Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) and stay enforcement 0f the subpoena pending resolution
of Defendants” motion.
Instead 0f obtaining any relevant information through party discovery, the least intrusive means
available, Plaintiff is instead conducting a textbook fishing expedition by insisting 0n seeking irrelevant
Louis
St. 10 and confidential information from Mr. Benitez’s former employer, American Building Supply (“ABS”).
0
Francisco
11 If, as Plaintiff states, this information is relevant because it may potentially demonstrate that Fresenius
San
12 knew something about Benitez’s driving record, the best source for that information is in Fresenius’s
LLP
9
13 employment file, not ABS’s records. Plaintiff has not shown Fresenius would have had any access to
Angeles
ELLIS
14 such information at the time it decided t0 employ Benitez. Plaintiff has not pursued party discovery to
Los
O
15 obtain this information. Indeed, Plaintiff has not taken Benitez’s deposition, instead repeatedly
TUCKER
Columbus
16 cancelling it at the last minute. (Declaration 0f Mollie F. Benedict (“Benedict Reply Decl.”) 1110, EX.
9
Cleveland
17 12.) As a result, Plaintiff cannot make a showing that such information is relevant t0 this action, 0r that
O 18 the risk of harm in the intrusion into Benitez’s privacy outweighs Plaintiff” s alleged need for Benitez’s
employment file from ABS. This subpoena
Chicago
19 is harassing and the information requested has no bearing
20 on the facts of this case.
21 Furthermore, Plaintiffs counsel’s actions in attempting t0 collect this information demonstrates
22 the need for Court intervention to quash the subpoena. Despite Plaintiff” s counsel’s actual knowledge
23 and receipt of Mr. Benitez’s written objections t0 the production of his prior employment records, and
24 stated intent to file a motion t0 quash, Plaintiff’ s counsel persisted in discussing the substance of the
25 subpoena With counsel for ABS and failed to inform ABS of Defendants’ objections. Employment
26 records are private, and the Code of Civil Procedure has specific requirements for a party t0 obtain such
27 information. Plaintiff has ignored these requirements, including in her capacity as the deposition officer,
28
2
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH NON—PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY
Document Filed Date
October 09, 2023
Case Filing Date
October 02, 2020
Category
Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA TUCKER ELLIS LLP COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MOLLIE F. BENEDICT SBN 187084 SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT mollie.benedict@tuckerellis.com 1 0/9’ 2 0 2 3 12.'3 1 PM AGGIE B. LEE SBN 228332 aggie.lee@tuckerellis.com By: Brianna Johnson, DEPUTY KAITLYN N. PANGBURN SBN 336346 .p kaitlyn.pangbum@tuckerellis.com 515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor QOUI Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213.430.3400 Facsimile: 213.430.3409 Attorneys for Defendants ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. and FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. Louis St. 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 Francisco 11 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 12 San LLP 9 Angeles 13 ABRAHAM CERDA TRUJILLO, an Case N0. CIV DS 2020893 individual, ELLIS Los 14 Assigned t0 the Hon. Winston Keh O Plaintiff, 15 DEFENDANTS ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR. AND TUCKER Columbus V. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, 16 INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 9 ALEX JOHN BENITEZ, JR., Driver; QUASH NON-PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA Cleveland 17 FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS INC, Registered Owner; and DOES through1 OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY O 18 50, Inclusive, [Filed concurrently with Declaration ofMollie F. Chicago 19 Defendants. Benedict] 20 Date: October 16, 2023 Time: 8:30 am. 21 Dept. S33 22 Complaint Filed: October 2, 2020 Trial Date: September 25, 2024 23 AND RELATED CROSS ACTION. 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH NON—PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Defendants Alex John Benitez, Jr. (“Benitez”) and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. (“Fresenius”) (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully request that the Court quash the Non-Party Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records 0f American Building Supply issued by Plaintiff Abraham Cerda Trujillo (“Plaintiff”) and stay enforcement 0f the subpoena pending resolution of Defendants” motion. Instead 0f obtaining any relevant information through party discovery, the least intrusive means available, Plaintiff is instead conducting a textbook fishing expedition by insisting 0n seeking irrelevant Louis St. 10 and confidential information from Mr. Benitez’s former employer, American Building Supply (“ABS”). 0 Francisco 11 If, as Plaintiff states, this information is relevant because it may potentially demonstrate that Fresenius San 12 knew something about Benitez’s driving record, the best source for that information is in Fresenius’s LLP 9 13 employment file, not ABS’s records. Plaintiff has not shown Fresenius would have had any access to Angeles ELLIS 14 such information at the time it decided t0 employ Benitez. Plaintiff has not pursued party discovery to Los O 15 obtain this information. Indeed, Plaintiff has not taken Benitez’s deposition, instead repeatedly TUCKER Columbus 16 cancelling it at the last minute. (Declaration 0f Mollie F. Benedict (“Benedict Reply Decl.”) 1110, EX. 9 Cleveland 17 12.) As a result, Plaintiff cannot make a showing that such information is relevant t0 this action, 0r that O 18 the risk of harm in the intrusion into Benitez’s privacy outweighs Plaintiff” s alleged need for Benitez’s employment file from ABS. This subpoena Chicago 19 is harassing and the information requested has no bearing 20 on the facts of this case. 21 Furthermore, Plaintiffs counsel’s actions in attempting t0 collect this information demonstrates 22 the need for Court intervention to quash the subpoena. Despite Plaintiff” s counsel’s actual knowledge 23 and receipt of Mr. Benitez’s written objections t0 the production of his prior employment records, and 24 stated intent to file a motion t0 quash, Plaintiff’ s counsel persisted in discussing the substance of the 25 subpoena With counsel for ABS and failed to inform ABS of Defendants’ objections. Employment 26 records are private, and the Code of Civil Procedure has specific requirements for a party t0 obtain such 27 information. Plaintiff has ignored these requirements, including in her capacity as the deposition officer, 28 2 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH NON—PARTY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS OF AMERICAN BUILDING SUPPLY