ARGHANDEWAL, MIRIAM v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 3 THE HONORABLE MICHAEL W. JONES TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR JULY 9, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M.

The final approval hearing is set for Thursday, December 10, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3.

5. S-CV-0052420 ARGHANDEWAL, MIRIAM v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN

Non-Party Timur Safi’s Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion to Sanctions

Non-party Timur Safi moves to quash defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill’s deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production of documents and things issued to him on March 2, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345 requires “any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement” and specifically includes a motion “To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).)

Here, non-party Timur Safi moved to quash the production of documents at a deposition. Yet, his motion was not accompanied by a separate statement as required. Nor did non-party Timur Safi attach the deposition subpoena or include the document requests in full to his moving papers, declarations filed in support of the motion, or reply papers.

Accordingly, the motion to quash subpoena is denied. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 892.)

Non-party Timur Safi and defendant Chipotle Mexican Grill’s request for sanctions are denied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)