Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCP03900, Date: 2023-11-30 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP03900 Hearing Date: November 30, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
State Farm
General Ins. Co. vs. Foster, et. al., Case No. 22STCP03900
Tentative Ruling
re: Respondent’s Motion to Quash
Deposition Subpoena
Respondent Barry Chase Foster
(Respondent) moves to quash the deposition subpoena served by Petitioner State
Farm General Insurance Company (State Farm) on Jeremy Karpel, Respondent’s
criminal defense attorney. The motion is granted as to Request Nos. 1-5 and 10,
and denied as to Nos. 6-9 and 11-12.
Where the witness whose deposition
is sought is not a
party, a subpoena must
be served to compel his or her attendance, testimony, or production of
documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.010, subd. (b).) A deposition subpoena may
request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the
production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and
testimony, as well as the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The court, upon motion or the court’s own
motion, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
In addition, “the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate to
protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including
unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
“For discovery purposes, information is
relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case,
preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’
[Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless
privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
[Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales
v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)
State Farm filed this
action in connection with its investigation of an insurance claim made by
Respondent under a policy covering the real property at 10347 McCormick St.,
North Hollywood, CA (the Property). (Petition ¶¶ 2-5.) On August 28, 2022, a
fire occurred at the Property; around the same time, one or more calls were
made to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) regarding alleged domestic
violence involving Respondent and his domestic partner. (Knapp Decl. ¶ 4.)
Personnel from both the LAPD and the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD)
responded to the scene, interacted with Respondent and his domestic partner,
and performed an investigation. (Knapp. Decl. ¶ 5.) Respondent was arrested and
charged with domestic violence and arson. (Knapp Decl. ¶ 5.) Respondent later
filed claims under the insurance policy for damages associated with the fire.
(Knapp Decl. ¶ 6.)
On July 6, 2023, State
Farm issued the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the
Subpoena) on Karpel, seeking production of 12 categories of documents:
·
Request
Nos. 1-3 seek documents related to the LAPD’s investigation of the incident on
August 28th (the Incident), such as documents identifying any officers present
or evidencing any statements taken.
·
Request
Nos. 4-5 seek “[a]ny and all documents pertaining to the INCIDENT [on August
28] or [Respondent], including but not limited to non-attorney client privilege
communications”; and “[a]ny and all documents disclosed to YOU pertaining to [Respondent].”
·
Request
Nos. 6-7 seek documents related to the Incident or to Respondent that Karpel
disclosed to either the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office or the
Office of City Attorney.
·
Request
Nos. 8-9 seek medical reports and toxicology reports concerning Respondent.
·
Request
No. 10 seeks all information and documentation regarding Respondent’s
negotiations and plea arrangements.
·
Request
No. 11 seeks documents pertaining to the disposition of Respondent’s charges
for arson, including court hearings, records, and transcripts.
·
Request
No. 12 seeks all documents related to the Incident or Respondent that Karpel
disclosed to Jane Beresford, Psy.D.
(Motion, Ex. 1 [12].)
Respondent does not
present any valid grounds to quash the subpoena as to Request Nos. 7-9
(medical/toxicology reports and documents disclosed to the Office of City
Attorney); Respondent argues only that State Farm already possesses these
records. However, the fact that State Farm may already possess some responsive
documents is not a legitimate basis for quashing the subpoena.
While Respondent
states that items disclosed to the District Attorney’s office (No. 6) are
protected by attorney-client privilege, Respondent provides no explanation or
authority in support, and has not produced a privilege log as necessary. (Code
Civ. Proc. § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1).) Respondent also presents no argument
regarding Request Nos. 11 or 12. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to Nos. 6-9
and 11-12.
Karpel states in his
declaration that he is unable to provide copies of incident reports related to
the criminal case, because the judicial officer in the criminal case cautioned
him not to turn over any documents “absent a judicial finding.” (Karpel Decl.
¶¶ 3-5.) Karpel asked permission from the judge to provide a copy of the police
report to State Farm, but the judge declined to authorize the production due to
the allegations of domestic violence. (Karpel Decl. ¶ 10.) Accordingly, the
motion is granted as to Nos. 1-3.
Under Evidence Code §
1153, “Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or of an offer to plead
guilty to the crime charged or to any other crime, made by the defendant in a
criminal action is inadmissible in any action or in any proceeding of any
nature, including proceedings before agencies, commissions, boards, and
tribunals.” “Because public policy favors settlements, and the chances of
achieving settlements are the greatest when the defense is candid with the
prosecution,” courts have interpreted Section 1153 to extend to “admissions
made in the course of bona fide plea bargaining
negotiations” and to “any incidental statements
made in the course of plea negotiations.” (People v. Crow (1994) 28
Cal.App.4th 440, 450.)
Request No. 10 seeks
“any and all information and documentation regarding [Respondent’s]
negotiations and plea arrangements.” The Court finds that this request is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, because
it is highly probable that any responsive documents would be barred by Section
1153. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion as to No. 10.
Because Request No. 4
and 5 appear to encompass all other categories of documents requested, the
issues with Request Nos. 1-3 and 10 are imputed to Nos. 4-5. The motion is
therefore also granted as to Nos. 4-5, for the reasons discussed above.