Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: "Cheragian vs. Starbucks, LLC", Date: 2022-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Mehrdokht Cheragian’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Quash (“Motion”) defendants Starbucks Corporation and South Coast Plaza’s (“Defendants” together) Subpoena of Plaintiff’s records from Costa Mesa Police Department (“CMPD”) is GRANTED in part.

The court grants the Motion pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code § 1985.3 and 1987.1.  The court notes that some of the information sought by the subpoena is relevant to the present lawsuit (Civ. Proc. Code § 2017.010; Gonzalez v. Superior Ct. (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1539, 1546), but as phrased, the subpoena is overbroad and may result in production of information that is not relevant to this lawsuit and/or protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy under Cal. Const., art. 1 § 1.  (Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856; Harris v. Superior Ct. (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665; Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 557.) 

Items that might be produced in response to the subpoena as phrased, which likely would not be relevant or discoverable, would theoretically be things such as: 1) emergency calls for police assistance for a break-in at Plaintiff’s house; 2) witness statements if Plaintiff gave a statement regarding a neighbor beating their spouse; and/or 3) arrest/citation reports if Plaintiff had ever been arrested or cited by the CMPD.  This information, not being relevant to the issues put forth in Plaintiff’s complaint would very likely not be admissible or discoverable in this action.  The court does however recognize the need for parties to have the police files pertaining to the allegation in the Complaint.

Instead of quashing the subpoena in its entirety, the court hereby issues an order directing Defendants to amend their subpoena to request only the following:

“Any and all records, police reports, photos, medical records, or any other documents contained in Costa Mesa Police Dept. Case File No. 19-006334, from the first date of contact up to and including the present.“

The above will permit Defendants to obtain the entirety of the police records covering the issues in this action, but would also limit production to only the case file that is relevant to this action.  The subpoena must be amended within five-days of the hearing.

Finally, although there is no meet and confer requirement on this type of motion, the court notes this issue very easily could have been handled by parties by simply timely meeting and conferring regarding limiting the subpoena to only the relevant information.  The court strongly encourages parties to attempt to work out future issues prior to seeking court intervention.

Plaintiff to give notice.