Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony
24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 737850499432 in Department 15
Tentative Ruling - 06/09/2026 Peter Borkon
The Motion to Compel DEFENDANT THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLCS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL TROY MOUNTS, M.D.S COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PERSON MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE AS TO TROY MOUNTS, M.D.S LIEN PRACTICES filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. on 04/20/2026 is Granted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges he sustained injuries due to a slip and fall incident that occurred on 11/9/2023. Plaintiffs attorney referred him to California Back and Pain Specialists (CBPS) to address his alleged injuries on a lien basis. Troy Mounts, M.D. is an orthopedic surgeon who performed evaluations of and surgery on Plaintiff Martin Martinez. (Reddiconto Decl. ¶¶ 2-4.)
On or about 11/6/2025, Defendant The Save Mart Companies, LLC (Save Mart) served Dr. Mounts with a deposition subpoena for the production of business records. (Mounts Decl. Ex. A.) On 11/15/2025, Dr. Mounts testified at deposition regarding Plaintiffs care and treatment. Dr. Mounts responded to some questions regarding Plaintiffs lien care. (See Mounts Decl. Ex. C.) Save Mart contends that the scope of that deposition was limited to Dr. Mounts role as percipient treating provider. (Reddiconto Decl. ¶ 21.)
In January 2026, Save Mart served Dr. Mounts with a deposition subpoena scheduled for 2/10/2026 requesting attendance and production of documents by Dr. Mounts person most knowledgeable (PMK) concerning billing and payments related to Plaintiffs care, as well as topics related to Dr. Mounts historical lien practices, the number of patients referred to Dr. Mounts by California Trial Law Group, Plaintiffs counsel in this case, and the relationship between Dr. Mounts and other providers who treated Plaintiff, and documents related thereto. (Id. Ex. 3.) Dr. Mounts designated Carlos Velasco, who contacted Save Mart on 1/26/2026 and identified himself as Dr. Mounts PMK for billing purposes. (Id. Ex. 4; see also Skogsberg Decl. ¶ 6.)
On 2/9/2026, one day before the noticed deposition, counsel for Dr. Mounts sent a written response to Save Mart objecting to the topics and document requests, and requesting a stipulation limiting the scope of the deposition. (Reddiconto Decl. Exs. 5, 6.) Save Mart responded on the same date and requested an alternative date for the PMK deposition within 30 days. (Id. Ex. 7.) In the parties subsequent email correspondence Dr. Mounts counsel indicated that Velascos testimony would be limited to billing but clarified that he cannot and do[es] not offer assurances that he is the PMK as to other subject areas. (Id.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Ex. 7.) The parties scheduled Velascos deposition on 3/2/2026; although Dr. Mounts offered 3/6/2026 as an alternative date for his own PMK appearance, he did not agree to appear without a stipulation limiting the scope of the 24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 737850499432 in Department 15 deposition. (Id.)
Velasco appeared and testified on 3/2/2026. During the 3/2/2026 deposition Dr. Mounts counsel confirmed that [Velasco] is being offered and produced today as the person most knowledgeable about billing. No other assurance was made[.] (Id. Ex. 9 [Velasco Dep. Tr. at 26:13-25].) Dr. Mounts counsel further confirmed that Velasco was not in possession of and had not produced documents related to Dr. Mounts lien practices generally. (Id. Ex. 10 [Velasco Dep. Tr., see e.g., 35:16-36:2, 38:10-20].) There is nothing in the record to support the notion that Velasco undertook any effort to enquire of everyone who might hold responsive documents or to determine the extent of information known by the entity.
On 3/6/2026, Dr. Mounts appeared solely to lodge objections. (Id. Ex. 14 [Mounts Dep. Tr.].) Dr. Mounts provided no testimony. In response to Save Marts assertion that it was entitled to conduct the deposition because Velasco was unable to testify regarding lien practices, Dr. Mounts counsel stated that Save Mart could make this argument to a judge. I dont think I need to sit here this morning and be subjected to this kind of bad faith because thats what this sounds like. (Id.) The deposition was terminated.
On 4/20/2026, Save Mart filed this motion to compel Dr. Mounts to produce a PMK to testify regarding deposition topics 2, 4, and 7-17 in the Mounts subpoena, and produce all documents within his possession, custody, or control responsive to document requests 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, 21-23, 27-28, 30-31 (dated 11/16/2025 through the present), and 32-47. (Id. Ex. 3). Save Mart also seeks monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery and for costs incurred for improper termination of the 3/6/2026 deposition.
Dr. Mounts was served with this motion on 4/20/2026 through his counsel of record; after the Court advanced the hearing from 7/23/2026 to 6/4/2026, Save Mart personally served Dr. Mounts counsel with an amended notice of motion. The Court did not receive Dr. Mounts opposition before the 6/4/2026 hearing, and continued the matter to 6/11/2026. The Court has reviewed the moving and opposition papers; as of 6/9/2026 the Court had not received a reply.
DISCUSSION
Save Mart contends that Dr. Mounts has never produced a PMK to testify regarding his lien practices or responded to related documents requests. The relevant topics include amounts historically accepted as payment in full of services billed on a lien to personal injury plaintiffs, referrals of attorney clients to Dr. Mounts for evaluation and treatment related to litigation, the number of patients referred to Dr. Mounts by Plaintiffs counsel, and Dr. Mounts relationship to the other lien providers in this case, including CBPS. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 20.) Save Mart contends that Dr. Mounts refusal to testify on this topic or designate another PMK has hampered its ability to obtain discovery regarding Dr. Mounts lien care practices in this case.
The Court may order a non-party to comply with a deposition subpoena for appearance and
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 737850499432 in Department 15 production of documents. (CCP §§ 1987.1(a), 2025.480(a).) Evidence of referrals to third party lien providers is relevant to the question of the reasonable value of the lien-physicians medical care because it may show bias or financial incentives on the part of the lien-physicians. If a lienphysician wants future referrals from a lawyer and understands that the lawyer benefits from inflating a client's medical bills, that incentive might encourage the lien-physician to inflate its current bill to please the lawyer and win future referrals. (Evid.
Code, §§ 210, 350.) (Qaadir v. Figueroa (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 790, 808.) Save Mart has demonstrated that testimony and documents related to Dr. Mounts lien practices and other topics identified in the deposition notice are relevant to demonstrating potential bias and financial incentives by third-party lien providers in this case.
Dr. Mountss opposition raises multiple arguments. First, he contends that Save Mart did not attempt to meet and confer after deposing Velasco or before filing this motion. During Dr. Mounts brief appearance on 3/6/2026, his counsel directed Save Mart to make its arguments concerning the scope of the deposition to a judge. (Reddiconto Decl. Ex. 14 at p. 11.) Based on counsels comments as reflected in the record, any further meet and confer before filing this motion to compel would appear to have been futile. This argument is unpersuasive and does not provide good cause to deny the motion.
Second, Dr. Mounts objects to the deposition on the ground that a second deposition would violate CCP section 2025.610s prohibition on successive depositions of the same person. Dr. Mounts decision to designate Velasco to appear and testify as his billing PMK can reasonably be interpreted as a waiver of this argument because it indicates that Dr. Mounts construed the subpoena to apply to his medical practice rather than himself as a percipient witness. Furthermore, Dr. Mounts designation of Velasco failed to comply with the subpoena.
Under CCP section 2025.230, an entity has a duty to designate the person most qualified to testify about the matters identified in the deposition notice. Velascos appearance on behalf of Dr. Mounts did not comply with that duty because Velasco was unable to testify about matters beyond Dr. Mounts billing practices. Thus, Save Mart was entitled to bring this motion to compel compliance and to seek sanctions for noncompliance with discovery under CCP section 2023.030(a).
Dr. Mounts contends that he has already produced all documents which pertain in any way to the care and treatment plaintiff received, or the financing of that care and treatment, including the pertinent lien agreement. (Opp. at p. 5; see also Mounts Decl. ¶¶ 9-10.) This response unilaterally narrows the scope of the subpoena to the care and treatment provided to Plaintiff. The subpoena is not so limited. As discussed above, Save Mart is entitled to discovery of this information because it is potentially relevant to the issues in this case. Thus, Dr. Mounts is ORDERED to produce all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control. If Dr. Mounts is unable to comply he shall provide a verified response that conforms to the requirements of CCP section 2031.230.
Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
24CV060362: MARTINEZ vs THE SAVE MART COMPANIES, LLC. 06/11/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Deposition Testimony; filed by The Save Mart Companies, LLC. (Defendant) CRS# 737850499432 in Department 15
Save Mart requests monetary sanctions against Dr. Mounts in the amount of $4,839. (See Not. of Mot. at p. 1.) Save Marts evidence reflects that it incurred $4,095 in costs, including $1,887 for the 3/6/2026 deposition and $2,208 for preparing this motion (9.2 hours at $240 hour). (Reddiconto Decl. ¶¶ 23-24.)
The request is therefore GRANTED in the amount of $4,095. (CCP §§ 2023.030(a), 2025.480(j).)
Dr. Mounts request for sanctions is DENIED.
ORDER
The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Dr. Mounts is ORDERED to produce a PMK (whether himself or some other person) for deposition, not to exceed 7 hours, to respond to deposition topics 2, 4, and 7-17, and produce documents identified in requests 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 13-16, 19, 21- 23, 27-28, 30-31 (dated 11/16/2025 through the present), and 32-47, or a verified response that conforms to section 2031.230. (Reddiconto Decl. Ex. 3.) To the extent Dr. Mounts may contend that documents responsive to these requests implicate third-party privacy rights, he shall produce a privacy log with sufficient information to allow the parties to meet and confer regarding an appropriate protective order, if necessary. The parties shall meet and confer regarding the date and time of the document production and the deposition.
Dr. Mounts and his counsel are ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay Save Mart a total of $4,095 in monetary sanctions, to be paid within 60 days of this order.