DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC23606966·sf·Civil·Discovery Dispute
Hearing 8 months agoGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

MARIA FRANCESCA SULAIMANI VS. HILARY PASSMAN ET AL

Notice And Motion To Compel Subpoena Compliance By Healthright 360 And Request For Sanctions

Hearing date
Jan 6, 2026
Department
302
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMARIA FRANCESCA SULAIMANI
DefendantHILARY PASSMAN
DefendantDEVIL'S TEETH, INC.

Attorneys

N. William Metkefor Defendant

Ruling

Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Tuesday January 06, 2026, Line 2. Defendants Hilary Passman and Devil's Teeth, Inc.'s unopposed Motion To Compel Subpoena Compliance By Healthright 360 And Request For Sanctions is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Defendants move under Code of Civil procedure section 1987.1. Section 1987.1(a) provides: "If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person."

Good cause appearing, the court orders Healthright 360 to comply in full with Defendants' June 6, 2025 Subpoena as modified by the court's July 29, 2025 Order within 15 court days of service of notice of this order. Defendants' request for sanctions is denied. To the extent Defendants seek different or additional relief, the motion is denied.

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.

Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.

The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share