Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 19STCV27602 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV27602, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV27602 Hearing Date: September 8, 2022 Dept: 28

Defendants Texgreen, Inc. And Andrew R. Ruiz’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing and replying papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff Christopher Burns (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Andrew R. Ruiz (“Ruiz”), Texgreen, Inc. (“Texgreen”) and Ermides Villalta (“Villalta”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed the FAC.

On February 18, 2020, Ruiz and Texgreen filed an answer. On February 21, 2020, Villalta filed an answer. The Court dismissed Villalta, without prejudice, on January 24, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On July 11, 2022, Ruiz and Texgreen (“Moving Defendants”) filed a Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Business Records to be heard on September 8, 2022. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On August 31, 2022, Moving Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for January 13, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Moving Defendants request the Court quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena to the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) for Ruiz’s driving records.

Moving Defendants also request the Court impose $810.00 in sanctions on Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion

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

Subpoena

On June 15, 2022, Plaintiff issued a depo subpoena to the DMV for any and all documents and records pertaining to Ruiz, including but not limited to his driving record. The production date is for July 15, 2022. Trial was originally scheduled for August 5, 2022; although trial was continued, the discovery cut-off date was not. Thus, discovery had to be completed on or before the 30^th day before the initial trial date—production needed to be due by July 6, 2022. (CCP § 2024.020(a).)

Additionally, the Court notes, the subpoena is overbroad. Plaintiff’s subpoena requests any and all records on file relating to Ruiz, regardless of scope, time or relevance. Certain records that record physical and mental conditions are generally considered to be confidential, (Vehicle Code §1808.5.)

Plaintiff argues the motion to quash is moot as the non-privileged records were produced pursuant to a July 18, 2022, SDT for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents at trial. The DMV objected to the subpoena, in part, only producing Ruiz’s driving record with no privileged information. If the initial subpoena has been withdrawn, it is accurate to state that the motion is now moot. However, the Court is unsure if these have actually been withdrawn. As such, the Court grants the motion in case they have not been withdrawn.

Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff effectively sidestepped the motion by reissuing the subpoena without providing proper notice to consumer. As the records were produced in response to a separate subpoena, Moving Defendants need to file a motion in response to that particular subpoena.

Sanctions

Although the subpoena in question is now potentially moot, the Court will still award sanctions. Plaintiff misused the discovery process in filing an overbroad subpoena for records with a production date set for after the discovery cut off. Moving Defendants request sanctions totaling $810.00 based upon 3 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, and one $60.00 filling fee. Attorney’s work is based upon 1 hour preparing the motion, 1 hour preparing a reply brief, and 1 hour appearing at the hearing. The Court finds the request reasonable and grants it in full.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Texgreen, Inc. And Andrew R. Ruiz’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. The subject subpoena is deemed quashed.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are ordered to pay $810.00 in sanctions to Moving Defendants 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.