Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01656/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01656-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

07cv1656

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VILAY SIRIPHONE dba IKE’S

TRANSMISSION AND CLUTCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-1656-L (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

COMPEL DEPOSITION OF JEAN

SIRIPHONE

[Document No. 35]

On June 19, 2008, Defendant Acceptance Indemnity Insurance

Company (“Acceptance”) filed a Motion to Compel Deposition of

Jean Siriphone (“Motion”), a third-party witness who failed to

appear after having been served with a “Subpoena in a Civil Case”

(“subpoena”) in this action. Ms. Siriphone filed no objection to

the subpoena and no opposition to the Motion. Because Acceptance

has shown that it complied with the requirements of Fed. Rule

Civ. Proc. 45 in serving the subpoena on Ms. Siriphone, and

because Ms. Siriphone has failed to present an adequate excuse

for not obeying the subpoena as provided by the Federal Rules of

Case 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 07cv1656

Civil Procedure, the Court GRANTS Acceptance’s Motion and ORDERS

Ms. Siriphone to appear for her deposition in this case.

This is an action for bad faith concerning the handling of

the claim of Plaintiff Vilay Siriphone dba Ike’s Transmission &

Clutch for first-party coverage benefits arising out of a theft

which occurred on May 12, 2005, at the insured premises. 

(Declaration of Tod M. Castronovo in Support of Motion [Doc. No.

35-2] (“T.M.C. Decl.”) at ¶ 2; See Notice of Removal [Doc. No.

1], Exhibit A at pp. 7-13 (Complaint).) On January 31, 2008,

Acceptance served a Notice of Taking Deposition of Jean Siriphone

for March 24, 2008. (T.M.C. Decl. at ¶ 4; Exhibits in Support of

Motion [Doc. No. 35-4] (“Exhibits”) at Exh. A.) On March 24,

2008, as counsel for Acceptance traveled to Carlsbad to take Ms.

Siriphone’s deposition, he received a telephone call from

Plaintiff’s counsel, Andy Van Le, advising that Ms. Siriphone was

ill and would not appear for her scheduled deposition. (T.M.C.

Decl. at ¶ 5.)

On April 27, 2008, Acceptance caused Ms. Siriphone to be

served with a subpoena issued by this Court, requiring her to

appear for her rescheduled deposition on May 20, 2008. (Exhibits

at Exh. B.) When Ms. Siriphone was served with the subpoena, she

advised the process server that she would not appear for her

deposition. Ms. Siriphone did in fact fail to appear for her

rescheduled deposition on May 20, 2008. (T.M.C. Decl. at ¶ 7;

Exhibits at Exh. C.)

On May 21, 2008, counsel for Acceptance, Mr. Castronovo,

mailed a letter to Ms. Siriphone, giving her one last opportunity

to comply with the subpoena before he filed this Motion. (T.M.C.

Case 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Curiously, Dr. Trung Quy Tran’s “Medical Certificate,” a handprinted note on his/her letterhead, is dated “October 30th, 2008.” 

(Exhibits at Exh. F.)

3 07cv1656

Decl. at ¶ 8; Exhibits at Exh. D.) Mr. Castronovo received no

response from Ms. Siriphone. (T.M.C. Decl. at ¶¶ 8-9.) On June

5, 2008, Mr. Castronovo spoke with Mr. Van Le to determine

whether he had the ability to produce Ms. Siriphone for her

deposition. Mr. Van Le informed him that he had no such ability

and further informed Mr. Castronovo that Ms. Siriphone’s doctor

had indicated that her health did not permit her giving a

deposition at that time. (Id. at ¶ 10; Exhibits at Exh. E.) By

facsimile dated June 6, 2008, Mr. Castronovo received a letter

from Ms. Siriphone’s doctor stating that Ms. Siriphone’s

deposition could be taken sixty (60) days after May 20, 2008. 

(T.M.C. Decl. at ¶ 11; Exhibits at Exh. F.)1

Acceptance contends that Ms. Siriphone’s deposition is

necessary because she is a percipient witness to one of the

central issues in this action, that is, Plaintiff’s report to the

San Diego Police Department regarding the value of the tools

allegedly stolen from his automotive garage. At the time of the

alleged theft, the tools were valued at approximately $1,700;

now, the alleged value is in excess of $100,000. (T.M.C. Decl.

at ¶ 12.) Additionally, Ms. Siriphone has percipient knowledge

of Plaintiff’s claim that he lost his business because of the

manner in which the claim was adjusted, and Plaintiff contends

that the manner in which the claim was adjusted resulted in Ms.

Siriphone divorcing Plaintiff. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Moreover, Ms.

Siriphone’s deposition is necessary because she was the contact

person for all dealings with the insurer and adjuster during the

Case 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 07cv1656

adjustment of Plaintiff’s insurance claim. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 45(a)(2)(B), a subpoena

to depose a nonparty witness “must issue ... from the court for

the district where the deposition will be taken.” Defendant

complied with the federal rule in issuing and serving the

subpoena on Ms. Siriphone in this case. (See Exhibits at Exh.

B.) The subpoena form advised Ms. Siriphone of her rights

concerning the subpoena, and specifically informed her that:

Failure of any person without adequate excuse to obey a

subpoena served upon that person may be deemed a

contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued. 

An adequate cause for failure to obey exists when a

subpoena purports to require a nonparty to attend ...

at a place not within [100 miles of home or business].

(Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 45(e)(emphasis supplied); Exhibits at Exh.

B). Ms. Siriphone filed no objection to the subpoena and took no

action other than transmitting to Mr. Castronovo, through Mr. Van

Le, the letter from Dr. Trung Quy Tran indicating that she would

be medically cleared to attend her deposition anytime after July

20, 2008. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court ORDERS the following:

(1) Mr. Castronovo shall cause this Order to be served on

Jean Siriphone not later than August 8, 2008;

(2) Jean Siriphone shall appear for her deposition on a

mutually agreed-upon date among herself, Mr.

Castronovo, and Mr. Van Le (or their offices), but in

no event shall Jean Siriphone appear for her deposition

after August 29, 2008 absent further order of the

Court;

//

Case 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 07cv1656

(3) The Court requests that Mr. Van Le assist Mr.

Castronovo is securing Jean Siriphone’s attendance at

her deposition by telephoning her and explaining to her

the potential consequences of a finding of civil

contempt of court.

Jean Siriphone is strongly cautioned that failure to comply

with this Order and appear for her deposition may result in a

finding of civil contempt of court, which can carry with it a

monetary fine in the form of a judgment against her. (See 18

U.S.C. § 401.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 31, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA Document 39 Filed 07/31/08 Page 5 of 5