Judge Christopher K. Lui, Case 21STCV37775 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV37775, Date: 2023-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37775 Hearing Date: April 11, 2023 Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein. As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue. Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776. If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to allow Plaintiff to work and did not accommodate his disabilities.

Plaintiff moves to quash the business records subpoena served upon third-party Kaiser Permanente.

TENTATIVE RULING

As such, the hearing on the motion to quash is CONTINUED to May 19, 2023 at 8:30 a.m. No later than April 21, 2023, Plaintiff is to provide a separate statement setting forth each category of documents to which Plaintiff objects, stating the objections to each. No later than May 5, 2023, Defendant is to provide an opposing separate statement setting forth good cause for production of each category of document sought. Plaintiff may file a reply separate statement by May 12, 2023.

DISCUSSION

Motion To Quash Records Subpoena

Plaintiff moves to quash the business records subpoena served upon third-party Kaiser Permanente.

Defendant is correct that Plaintiff failed to comply with the separate statement requirement set forth at Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345(a)(5). By that same token, Defendant has not made a fact-specific showing of good cause for production of each category of documents sought in the deposition subpoena.

Case law has imposed the “good cause” requirement for subpoena document requests propounded upon non-parties, that is, the propounding party must articulate specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to justify production:

In the course of the litigation, Thiem served a subpoena under section 2020 on Calcor's custodian of records demanding Calcor, a nonparty and Thiem's competitor, to, in effect, produce all materials in its possession relating to gun mounts, going back nearly 10 years. The subpoena fails to identify any specific document but merely describes broad categories of documents and other materials.

(Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 219.)

Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless. . . . [Former] Section 2031, subdivision (l), which applies to document production requests served on a party, requires a [*224] party seeking to compel such production to "set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand . . . ." (Italics in original.) Section 2020, the statute at issue, contains no such specific requirement. However, since both sections are part of a single statutory scheme, and since it is unlikely the Legislature intended to place greater burdens on a nonparty than on a party to the litigation, we read a similar requirement into the latter section.

(Calcor Space Facility, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 223-24.)

Even were we to ignore that the statements purporting to justify an order compelling Calcor to produce its documents and other materials are unverified, they still fail. There is an absence of specific facts relating to each category of materials sought to be produced; the justifications offered for the production are mere generalities. The very vice of the subpoena's promiscuity is well illustrated by Thiem's inability to provide focused, fact-specific justifications for its demands. The noted generality of the subpoena's definitions, instructions and categories which merely add up to a demand Calcor produce everything in its possession having anything to do with gun mounts, precludes Thiem from demonstrating any particular item or category in fact constitutes or contains matter which "is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (§ 2017, subd. (a).) The purported justification for imposing this great burden on Calcor necessarily suffers from the same generality as the subpoena itself.

Although appellate courts have frequently stated "fishing expeditions" are permissible in discovery, there is a limit. As noted in Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539 [39 Cal. Rptr. 2d 896], "These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery ( Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790), and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases." (Id. at p. 1546.) However, early in the development of our discovery law our Supreme Court recognized the limits on such "fishing expeditions." In [*225] Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355 [15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266], the seminal case in California civil discovery, the court gave examples of improper "fishing" WHICH CLEARLY APPLY HERE: "The method of 'fishing' may be, in a particular case, entirely improper (i.e., insufficient identification of the requested information to acquaint the other party with the nature of information desired, attempt to place the burden and cost of supplying information equally available to both solely upon the adversary, placing more burden upon the adversary than the value of the information warrants, etc.). Such improper methods of 'fishing' may be (and should be) controlled by the trial court under the powers granted to it by the statute." ( Id. at pp. 384-385.) The concerns for avoiding undue burdens on the "adversary" in the litigation expressed in Greyhound apply with even more weight to a nonparty.

Had the Greyhound court been able to anticipate the tremendous burdens promiscuous discovery has placed on litigants and nonparties alike, it might well have taken a stronger stand against such "fishing." Greyhound's optimism in noting the then new discovery system would be "simple, convenient and inexpensive," would "expedite litigation," and "expedite and facilitate both preparation and trial," has certainly proven to have been considerably off the mark. (56 Cal. 2d at p. 376.)

The issues in this litigation may essentially be reduced [***18] to the question whether Thiem's work met Delco's specifications. This may be determined without any reference to the contract between Delco and Calcor or the specifications which are part of that contract. Another issue which may exist is whether Delco may recover the excess of the cost of the gun mounts procured from Calcor as damages for "cover" under California Uniform Commercial Code section 2712. (See Gerwin v. Southeastern Cal. Assn. of Seventh Day Adventists (1971) 14 Cal. App. 3d 209, 217-218 [92 Cal. Rptr. 111].) If so, differences in specifications issued to Thiem and to Calcor may be relevant. However, discovery by Thiem from Delco should normally provide it with this evidence. As between parties to litigation and nonparties, the burden of discovery should be placed on the latter only if the former do not possess the material sought to be discovered. An exception to this may exist where a showing is made the material obtained from the party is unreliable and may be subject to impeachment by material in possession of the nonparty. Thiem has not even attempted to demonstrate why it cannot obtain the needed materials from Delco or why such materials might be unreliable.

(Calcor Space Facility, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 224-25 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)