Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court

34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 10/13/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enforce the California Rehabilitation Center's Compliance with a Consumer Records Subpoena in Department 53

Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendants Apple Nine Hospitality Management, Inc. and Springhill SMC, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for an order compelling compliance with a subpoena duces tecum for consumer records issued to the California Rehabilitation Center (“CRC”) is unopposed and ruled upon as follows.

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Ronald Curd, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed his complaint on October 19, 2020, alleging causes of action for premises liability and general negligence. As pertinent here, on April 23, 2025, Defendants served a subpoena duces tecum on Plaintiff’s counsel (as Plaintiff was represented at the time) regarding telephone call recordings and call logs between inmate Sean Bethel (“Mr. Bethel”) (CDCR No. BY0012) and Plaintiff from January 1, 2023, to the present. (Graziani Decl., ¶ 2.) On April 28, 2025, Defendants personally served the subpoena duces tecum on CRC, which also included a Notice to Consumer to Mr. Bethel. (Ibid., see also id. at Exh. A.) On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel served written objections, on various grounds including overbreadth and privacy. (Id., at ¶ 4, Exh. B.)

On May 16, 2025, Defendants filed this instant motion. Defendants move pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985.3, 1987.1, and 2020.510, and seek the production of audio recordings and call logs of inmate Sean Bethel’s (Mr. Bethel) telephone communications with Plaintiff in pro per Ronald L. Curd (“Plaintiff”), from January 1, 2023, to the present. (See Ntc., p. 2:8-12.) Defendants contend that through their investigation they have learned Plaintiff discussed his injuries with Mr. Bethel over the telephone, that these telephone calls were recorded and logged (as Mr. Bethel is presently incarcerated at CRC), and that these recordings/call logs would not only be relevant but also critical to the defense of this case, particularly regarding impeachment, damages, and the plaintiff’s overall credibility.

Defendants also maintain that counsel has been “informed and believe[s]” that Mr. Bethel has received notice of the subpoena at issue and has not taken any action to object or otherwise prevent the production of the records despite being given the chance to. (Simmen Decl., ¶ 33, Exh. F.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 10/13/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enforce the California Rehabilitation Center's Compliance with a Consumer Records Subpoena in Department 53

Despite this, and despite efforts to meet and confer, Plaintiff has been unagreeable to withdraw his counsel’s objection to the subpoena. In this regard, Defendants contend this motion became necessary. Relatedly, while it appears Defendants request sanctions (see Mov. P&A, p 13:5-15), the notice of motion fails to specify the amount of sanctions and whom sanctions are sought.[1]

In its original tentative ruling, dated September 12, 2025, the Court noted issues with service as to CRC and Mr. Bethel. At the hearing on September 15, 2025, Counsel for Defendants represented that they submitted a proof of personal service of the motion on CRC, which they also presented to the Court, via videoconference. Defendants argued that they believed the Notice to Consumer was properly served on Mr. Bethel, but requested additional time to provide proof of service of the Notice to Consumer to the Court, or in the alternative, supplemental briefing regarding why service was proper. (9/15/25 Order.)

Accordingly, this matter was continued from September 15, 2025, to this date. Defendants were permitted to file and serve supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages, and/or proof of service regarding the Notice to Consumer no later than September 22, 2025. Plaintiff was permitted to file and serve any response, not to exceed five pages, no later than September 29, 2025. (Ibid.)

On September 18, 2025, Defendants filed a supplemental declaration of their counsel, David G. Graziani, in support of this motion. In his declaration Mr. Graziani states:

On April 28, 2025, as counsel for Defendants, I instructed First Legal attorney service to serve by first-class United States mail the subpoena duces tecum, together with the Notice to Consumer, on Sean Bethel. That same day, First Legal mailed the subpoena packet, including the Notice to Consumer, to Post Office Box 1841, Norco, CA 92860, which is the designated mailing address for inmates housed at the California Rehabilitation Center (“CRC”). CRC requires that inmate correspondence be routed through this P.O. Box, and inmate Sean Bethel receives mail there.

(Graziani Decl., ¶ 4, Exh B.) Exhibit B shows the person served as “MAILED SUBPOENA PACKET (NTC INCLUDED WITH SUBPOENA PACKET) TO SEAN BETHEL.” Mr. Graziani also attaches a copy of the Proof of Personal Service on CRC’s custodian of records and states that this shows CRC was personally served with the pending motion on April 28, 2025. (Id., ¶ 9, Exh. C.)

Relying upon counsel’s representations and the proofs of service submitted with the original motion as well as with the supplemental declaration, the Court finds that its concerns regarding service of the pending motion and the subpoena have been addressed.

With respect to the merits of the motion, the Court received no opposition from Plaintiff or CRC.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 10/13/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Enforce the California Rehabilitation Center's Compliance with a Consumer Records Subpoena in Department 53

The Court treats the failure to file an opposition as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n. 4.) Further, Defendant have presented a compelling need for the information in the subpoenaed records. (See Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. CRC shall comply with the deposition subpoena no later than November 3, 2025, or at a later date agreed upon with Defendants, if agreed upon in writing.

The Court, in its discretion, declines to award sanctions as the motion was unopposed and the Court has concerns regarding the notice provided in the Notice of Motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2 (a).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] Indeed, Code Civil Procedure section 2023.040 requires that a request for sanction shall, in the

notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought.