Hinrichsen et al v. Quality Loan Service Corporation et al
Filing
244
ORDER Denying without Prejudice 237 Motion for Order deeming Service of Deposition Subpoena effectuated by overnight and email service and compelling the Lucores to Appear for Deposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major on 11/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(aef)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Case No.: 16cv690-DMS(BLM)
RICK J. HINRICHSEN, ANNA HINRICHSEN,
AND HOLLY COX,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION FOR ORDER
DEEMING SERVICE OF DEPOSITION
SUBPOENA EFFECTUATED BY
OVERNIGHT AND EMAIL SERVICE AND
COMPELLING THE LUCORES TO
APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION
Plaintiffs,
v.
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION,
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY as Trustee For the Holders of New
Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
2005-A, Asset Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, AND DOES 1-10,
[ECF No. 237]
Defendants.
18
19
Currently before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Deutsche Bank National Trust
20
Company and Intervenor Bank of America, N.A.’s (“Counterclaimants”) “MOTION FOR AN
21
ORDER DEEMING SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA ON STEVEN LUCORE AND JUDY
22
LUCORE EFFECTUATED BY OVERNIGHT AND EMAIL SERVICE AND FOR AN ORDER
23
COMPELLING THE LUCORES TO APPEAR FOR DEPOSITION” [ECF No. 237-1 (“Mot.”)] and
24
former Counter-Defendants Steven H. Lucore’s and Judy L. Lucore’s November 17, 2017
25
opposition to the motion [ECF No. 241-1 (“Oppo.”)].
26
Counterclaimants’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
For the reasons set forth below,
27
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
28
On October 2, 2017, Plaintiff Anna Hinrichsen filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces
1
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
1
Tecum for Medical Records. ECF No. 217. On October 4, 2017, Mr. Lucore appeared for his
2
deposition but no deposition was conducted as the parties agreed to continue discovery so that
3
more time and resources could be put into settlement efforts. Mot. at 4.
4
October 9, 2017, the parties files a “JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON
5
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH; TO CONTINUE DEPOSITION DATES; AND TO CONTINUE
6
WRITTEN DISCOVERY DEADLINES.” ECF No. 221. The parties sought in part to continue the
7
October 4, 2017 deposition of Steven H. Lucore, Sr. to November 28, 2017 and the October 5,
8
2017 deposition of Judy Lucore to December 5, 2017. Id. at 3-4. In support, the parties stated
9
that they had “commenced settlement negotiations and [we]re actively attempting to resolve
10
this matter prior to trial and [we]re concurrently filing a motion to request a settlement
11
conference with this Court” and that postponing the deadline “[would] enable[] [them] to focus
12
their resources on mediation and potential resolution without concurrently having to engage in
13
potentially unnecessary and costly motion practice.” Id. at 2.
To that end, on
14
On October 10, 2017, the Court granted the parties’ motion and ordered that “[t]he
15
deposition of Steven H. Lucore, Sr. will take place on November 28, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.” and
16
that “[t]he deposition of Judy L. Lucore will take place on December 5, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.” ECF
17
No. 223 at 2-3.
18
On October 18, 2017, after Counterclaimants filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice
19
of their counterclaim against Counter-Defendants Steven H. Lucore, Sr., Judy L. Lucore, The
20
Rick and Anna Hinrichsen Property Trust, Pacifico Property Trust, and Hayven Arizona Finance,
21
the Lucores were terminated from the case.
22
Counterclaimants later withdrew the deposition notices for the Lucores and prepared deposition
23
subpoenas for personal appearance.
24
attempted to personally serve the Lucores on November 4-7th 2017 without success. Id.; see
25
also ECF No. 237-2, Declaration of Piper A. Waldron in Support of Motion (“Waldron Decl.”) at
26
2, Exh. A.
See Docket and ECF No. 224.
Mot. at 4.
Accordingly,
Counterclaimants’ process server then
27
On November 8, 2017, counsel for Counterclaimants emailed Mr. Lucore and requested
28
that he accept service of the deposition subpoenas. Id.; see also Waldron Decl. at 4, Exh. B.
2
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
1
Mr. Lucore declined to do so because the counterclaim had been dismissed and because he
2
plans to be out of town until mid-December. Id. On November 10, 2017, Counterclaimants
3
served the deposition subpoenas on the Lucores by overnight mail and email. Id. at 4, Exhs. C
4
and D.
5
“voluntarily commit to being deposed” when they return if Counterclaimants and Plaintiffs
6
“stipulate to extending discovery to the middle of January.” Waldron Decl. at Exh. D at 1.
Mr. Lucore responded that afternoon and stated that he and Ms. Lucore would
7
LEGAL STANDARD
8
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”) 45 establishes the rules for subpoenas
9
served upon individuals and entities that are not parties to the underlying lawsuit. See Fed. R.
10
Civ. P. 45. “Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person.” Fed. R. Civ.
11
P. 45(b)(1). “Proving service, when necessary, requires filing with the issuing court a statement
12
showing the date and manner of service and the names of the persons served. The statement
13
must be certified by the server.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(4).
14
DISCUSSION
15
Counterclaimants seek an order from the Court “1) deeming overnight and email service
16
of the deposition subpoenas on Steven and Judy Lucore effectuated; and 2) compelling their
17
appearance at the Court’s previously ordered depositions set for November 28, 2017 and
18
December 5, 2017, respectively.” Mot. at 3. Counterclaimants argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 45
19
does not require personal service and that the Lucores have been aware of the depositions since
20
October 10, 2017. Id. at 5-7. Counterclaimants also argue that alternative methods of service
21
should be permitted where, as is the case here, witnesses are purposefully evading service. Id.
22
at 8. Finally, Counterclaimants argue that with the discovery deadline looming, they will be
23
prejudiced if the Court requires personal service. Id. at 8-9.
24
The Lucores contend that Counterclaimants’ “motion lacks merit” and that because they
25
are no longer parties to the action, they have scheduled a holiday vacation during the time their
26
depositions were originally ordered to take place. Oppo. at 2, 6.
The Lucores also contend
27
28
3
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
1
that Counterclaimants cannot have the benefit of dismissing their case against the Lucores1 and
2
avoid personally serving them in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. 45. Id. at 3. The Lucores note
3
that case law is on their side as most Ninth Circuit authority requires personal service for
4
nonparties. Id. at 3-4. The Lucores further note that they have not evaded service and provide
5
video footage from their home in support of their argument that Counterclaimants’ process
6
server has not made a “diligent attempt” to serve them. Id. at 5-6. Finally, the Lucores contend
7
that “this Court has no jurisdiction over the Lucores as a result of [Counterclaimants’] voluntary
8
dismissal.” Id. at 9-10.
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 states that serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named
10
person. While this is often interpreted as requiring personal service2, “[t]here appears to be a
11
growing—although still minority—trend among courts to allow substitute service of a Rule 45
12
subpoena, such as mail delivery, so long as the method of service is reasonably calculated to
13
provide timely, fair notice and an opportunity to object or file a motion to quash.” In re: Ex
14
Parte Application of Pro-Sys Consultants & Neil Godfrey, 2016 WL 6025155, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
15
14, 2016) (citing Toni Brattin & Co. v. Mosaic Int'l, LLC, 2015 WL 1844056, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
16
9, 2015) (granting motion to serve Rule 45 subpoenas by certified mail); Green v. Baca, 2005
17
WL 283361, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2005) (same (collecting cases)). “Courts are more
18
inclined to grant such alternative service where the serving party has provided sufficient
19
20
1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Lucores allege that Counterclaimants dismissed the case against them in bad faith “to
avoid a dispositive ruling on the Lucore’s summary judgment [motion] that was pending” at the
time. Oppo. at 3.
2
See Prescott v. County of Stanislaus, 2012 WL 10617, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan.3, 2012) (stating that
“[p]ersonal service of a deposition subpoena is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1),” that “[a]
majority of courts interpret ‘delivering’ to require personal service,” and noting that while “the
Ninth Circuit has not issued a published opinion on this topic, more than a decade ago, in Chima
v. United States Dep't of Defense, 23 Fed. Appx. 721 at *6–7 (9th Cir. Dec.14, 2001), the Court
issued an unpublished decision affirming trial court's refusal to compel compliance with
subpoena that was served by mail”); see also Poly-Med, Inc. v. Novus Sci. PTE Ltd., 2017 WL
2291942, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2017) (“Serving a subpoena requires “delivering a copy to
the named person,” which is often interpreted to mean personal service. Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(b)(1)”).
4
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
1
evidence of its earlier diligence in attempting to effectuate personal service.” Id. (citing Toni
2
Brattin & Co., 2015 WL 1844056, at *3 (authorizing service by mail where the serving party
3
made earlier attempts to make personal service, failed, and sought in advance leave of court to
4
serve by alternative service). Fujikura Ltd. v. Finisar Corp., 2015 WL 5782351, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
5
Oct. 5, 2015).
6
Here, the Court is not inclined to follow the recent trend of permitting alternate service
7
at this time as the Court does not find that Counterclaimants have been sufficiently diligent in
8
their efforts to personally serve the deposition subpoenas on the Lucores. Counterclaimants
9
hired a process server, R.T. Hansell, to serve the deposition subpoenas and Mr. Hansell went to
10
Mr. and Mrs. Lucore’s residence several times over a four day period. See Waldron Decl. at Exh.
11
A. However, as the Lucores note, it is not clear what Mr. Hansell actually did to serve the
12
subpoenas. Waldron Decl. at 2; see also Oppo. at 5-6. Specifically, while Mr. Hansell reported
13
that he attempted to serve the documents multiple times between November 4th and 7th 2017,
14
a closer look at his service attempt log shows that he spent a lot of time surveilling the house
15
without ringing the doorbell or getting out of his car. Id. at Exh. A. There are comments such
16
as “I attempted to get someone’s attention” without any explanation as to what that means.
17
Id. For example, did Mr. Hansell ring the doorbell? Approach the gate? Yell at Mr. or Ms.
18
Lucore? Id. at 2, Exh. A. In addition, Mr. Hansell states that he observed other adults at the
19
Lucores’ residence, but never mentions approaching them or asking them for assistance in
20
locating the Lucores. Id. Finally, the video footage submitted by the Lucores shows that there
21
are several discrepancies between Mr. Hansell’s service attempt log and what the Lucores allege
22
was happening at their home.3
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
For example, Mr. Hansell’s report states that he observed the Lucore’s house starting at 5:00
p.m. on November 7, 2017 and that all remained quiet until approximately 8:30 p.m. when a
man, woman (not Steven and Judy Lucore), and child left the house. Waldron Decl. at Exh. A.
However, the video footage Mr. Lucore submitted shows two people leaving the home at 5:08
p.m., Mr. Lucore taking out the trash at 5:25 p.m., and someone arriving at 6:09 p.m. and 6:16
p.m. See ECF No. 240. While the Court does not need to resolve this factual dispute at this
time, the Court notes that it has no way of verifying the authenticity of the video footage and
that Judge Sabraw previously questioned Mr. Lucore’s credibility and found evidence that he
5
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
1
Accordingly, the Court finds that at this time, Counterclaimants have not established the
2
requisite diligence to justify adopting the minority view and authorizing service by mail.
3
However, the evidence presented to the Court does create a concern that the Lucores are
4
evading service. The evidence also establishes that the Lucores know that Counterclaimants
5
want to depose them, readily respond to emails declaring when they will not appear for a
6
deposition, and yet are unwilling to agree to either a mutually convenient date to be deposed
7
or a mutually convenient date or method for service of the deposition subpoenas. The Court,
8
therefore, DENIES Counterclaimants’ motion without prejudice.
9
additional unsuccessful efforts to serve the Lucores, Counterclaimants may file another motion
10
seeking authorization for overnight and email service. If the Lucores want to arrange mutually
11
convenient dates for their depositions, as they indicate in their November 10, 2017 email to
12
defense counsel [see Waldron Decl. at Exh. D], they should contact counsel for
13
Counterclaimants. Further, given the history of this case, as well as the facts set forth in this
14
motion, the Court authorizes Counterclaimants to depose the Lucores after the expiration of the
15
discovery deadline.4
If Counterclaimants make
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
Dated: 11/27/2017
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
was evading service. ECF No. 199.
28
4
No other discovery may be conducted after the discovery deadline without prior court approval.
6
16cv690-DMS(BLM)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?