Sewalt v. DOES

TENTATIVE RULING(S) FOR AUGUST 18, 2026 Department S37 – Judge Winston Keh This court follows California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(b) for tentative rulings. (See San Bernardino Superior Court Local Emergency Rule 8.) Tentative rulings for each law & motion will be posted on the internet (https://www.sb-court.org) by 3:00 p.m. on the court day immediately before the hearing.

You may appear in person at the hearing although remote appearance by CourtCall is preferred. (See www.sb-court.org/general-information/remote-access).

If you do not have Internet access or if you experience difficulty with the posted tentative ruling, you may obtain the tentative ruling by calling the department (S-37) at (909) 708-8707 or the Administrative Assistant (909) 708-8756, who prepared the ruling.

If you (or both parties) wish to submit on the Tentative, notify the other party and call the department by 4:00 pm the day before and your appearance may be excused unless the Court orders you to appear.

You must appear at the hearing if you are so directed by the court in the tentative ruling. Be prepared to address those issues set forth by the court in its ruling.

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE PREVAILING PARTY IS TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE

RULING.

Sewalt v. DOES

__________________________________________________________________________

TENTATIVE RULING(S):

Plaintiff, appearing in propria persona, moves to compel compliance with a purported deposition subpoena

directed to the school district. The motion is DENIED.

The motion fails at the threshold because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a valid deposition subpoena

was issued and properly served upon the school district. There is nothing presently before the Court that

can be enforced against the school district. Plaintiff cannot obtain an order compelling a nonparty to

comply with a subpoena that was never validly issued and served upon that nonparty.

The evidence before the Court does not establish that Plaintiff served a properly completed subpoena

directed to the school district. Instead, the subpoena was purportedly served upon an individual identified

only as “Harold H.,” without establishing that he was an officer, director, custodian of records, or an agent

or employee authorized by the school district to accept service of a subpoena. Service upon an individual

does not constitute service upon an organization unless the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure

section 2020.220(b)(2) are satisfied.

Accordingly, the Court need not reach the merits of the particular information or documents Plaintiff seeks,

including whether the requested discovery is relevant, privileged, protected by other statutory provisions,

or otherwise subject to objection.

Plaintiff is not precluded from seeking nonparty discovery in the future through a properly issued,

completed, and served deposition subpoena that complies with the requirements of the California Code of

Civil Procedure and any applicable notice requirements.