Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV30691, Date: 2023-02-07 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.     If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 
            If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.  

Case Number: 19STCV30691    Hearing Date: February 7, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendants Brittany Johnson’s Motion to Compel Law Offices of Hamed Yazdanpanah & Associates’ Compliance with Subpoena for Records

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

BACKGROUND

On August 29, 2019, Plaintiff Jesus Barragan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Brittany Johnson (“Johnson”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) and Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On April 29, 2020, Rasier and Uber filed answers. On November 12, 2020, Johnson filed an answer.

On December 29, 2022, Johnson filed a Motion to Compel Law Offices of Hamed Yazdanpanah & Associates’ Compliance with Subpoena for Records to be heard on February 7, 2023. On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On January 31, 2023, Johnson filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for August 18, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Johnson requests the Court order Law Offices of Hamed Yazdanpanah & Associates (“Deponent”) to comply with the production of business records issued by Johnson on November 3, 2022.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a deponent fails to answer any question or produce any document, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production. CCP § 2025.480. A plaintiff may serve a deposition notice without leave of court on any date that is 20 days after the service of the summons on, or appearance by, any defendant. CCP § 2025.210.

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.)

CRC Rule 3.1346 states “A written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent unless the nonparty deponent agrees to accept service by mail or electronic service at an address or electronic service address specified on the deposition record.”

DISCUSSION

This case stems from an automobile accident that occurred on August 31, 2017, in which Johnson’s car rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle while Plaintiff was stopped at a red light. Johnson alleges that Plaintiff was involved in a subsequent automobile accident on May 30, 2018, with non-party Melsy Lobaton (“Lobaton”). Lobaton, while being represented by Deponent, sued Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s insurance carrier paid out $3,723.99 for the claim.

Deponent is representing Plaintiff in this current action; Johnson issued a subpoena on deponent for the production of non-privileged records pertaining to the May 30, 2018, accident. Johnson claims that these documents are necessary for Johnson’s evaluation of whether the May 2018 incident caused or exacerbated Plaintiff’s alleged damages. Deponent objected to this subpoena, refusing to produce documents without a Court order.

Johnson states that Johnson’s counsel and Deponent agreed that Deponent would look for and produce any non-privileged documents by December 22, 2022; to date, Deponent has produced no responsive documents.

First, the Court notes that as Deponent is being served not as Plaintiff’s counsel, but as a third-party deponent, Johnson must effectuate personal service on Deponent. Johnson has complied with this requirement, so the Court will rule on the merits.

Johnson argues that, according to Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff began receiving much more aggressive medical treatment after the May 2018 accident. Johnson needs to investigate the facts of the subsequent accident, including the impact of both vehicles. Johnson specifically is interested in any communication between Deponent and Plaintiff’s carrier at the time of the accident, as well as Deponent and Plaintiff’s lawyer discussing the facts of the accident to the extent that they can help Johnson calculate the delta-v of the collision. Johnson claims none of this is subject to attorney client privilege or protected by the work product statute.

The Court finds the information sought is potentially relevant and discoverable.  The Law Offices of Hamed Yazdanpanah & Associates have shown no good cause not to comply with the subject subpoena.

CONCLUSION

Defendants Brittany Johnson’s Motion to Compel Law Offices of Hamed Yazdanpanah & Associates’ Compliance with Subpoena for Records is GRANTED.

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.