Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 220STCV33002, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 220STCV33002    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiffs Ann Nugyen, Sergio Cabera and Katherine Vargas-Moreno's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2020, Plaintiffs Ann Nugyen (“Nguyen”), Sergio Cabera (“Cabera”) and Katherine Vargas-Moreno (“Vargas”) filed this action against Defendants Robertson Transport (“Transport”) and Aaron Sage Milan (“Milan”) for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendant Robertson’s Ready Mix, LTD (“RRM”).

On March 1, 2021, Transport and Milan filed an answer.

On March 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Records to be heard on May 15, 2023.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 3, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiffs request the Court quash the subpoenas for records served on 21 providers. Plaintiffs also request the Court impose sanctions totaling $3,927.50 on Milan, Transport and their counsel.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1: (a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.3(b) outlines that a subpoena for production of personal records must be served on the consumer whose records are sought; it must be served at least five days prior to service upon the custodian of records. This subpoena must be accompanied by a notice indicating records sought, how to object, and that an attorney should be consulted, although this may be included in the Notice of Deposition served on consumer. CCP § 1985.3(e). Section (g) further clarifies: “No witness or deposition officer shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that the motion [to quash] has been brought by a consumer, or after receipt of a written objection from a nonparty consumer, except upon order of the court in which the action is pending or by agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumers affected.”

As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) When the information sought to be discovered impacts a person’s constitutional right to privacy, limited protections come into play for that person. (Shaffer v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 993, 999.) The protections cover both a person’s personal and financial matters. (Id.) The court must balance competing rights — the right of a litigant to discover relevant facts and the right of an individual to maintain reasonable privacy — in determining whether the information is discoverable. (Id.) For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the

case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

DISCUSSION

Motion to Quash

Nguyen alleges that, as a result of the subject incident, Nguyen experienced head injuries, neck injuries, back injuries, depression, balance complaints and PTSD. Vargas alleges that she suffers from head pain, neck pain, abdomen pain, left arm pain, shoulder and back pain, anxiety and PTSD. Cabrera alleges that he suffers from head pain, neck pain, back pain, abdomen pain, ankle pain, anxiety and PTSD.

Plaintiffs request that the subject subpoenas be limited in scope to 10 years. Plaintiffs also request that the requests be tailored to the alleged injuries. Finally, Plaintiffs request that the subpoenas not use their social security numbers.

Milan and Transport served 21 subpoenas for Plaintiffs’ medical records, employment records and health insurance file records. The requests for medical records were limited to starting at September 14, 2009, but not limited in scope of body parts. The requests for employment records and the health insurance file were without any limitations to scope of time or issues. The employment subpoenas also included Plaintiffs’ social security numbers, without their consent.

The Court finds good cause and grants the motion. The Court quashes all subpoenas. In future subpoenas requests, the requests should be limited as follows. All subpoenas should not request records prior to 10 years before the subject incident. All requests for medical records should be tailored to body parts reasonably associated with the injuries at issue. No records should contain Plaintiffs’ unredacted social security numbers. Employment records should be limited in scope to issues relevant to this litigation.

Sanctions

The Court awards sanctions against Milan and Transport for misusing the discovery process and failing to withdraw subpoenas after Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs request sanctions totaling $3,867.50, based upon 6.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $595.00 per hour, and one $60.00 filling fee. Time spent is based upon 4.5 hours to prepare the motion and 2 hours to reply to any opposition and appear at the hearing. The Court

grants sanctions totaling $1,060.00, based on 4 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $250.00 per hour.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs Ann Nugyen, Sergio Cabera and Katherine Vargas-Moreno's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records is GRANTED. The subject subpoenas are deemed quashed.

Plaintiffs Ann Nugyen, Sergio Cabera and Katherine Vargas-Moreno's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Milan and Transport are ordered to pay Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel $1,060.00 in sanctions within 30 days of the hearing on the motion.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.