Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV46901, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV46901    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Chona A. Chua’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum

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

BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2020, Plaintiffs Chona A. Chua (“Chona”) and Fernando Y. Chia (“Fernando”) filed this complaint against Defendant Chan Vinh Nguyen (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence. 

Defendant filed his answer on August 5, 2021. 

On June 29, 2022, Chona filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum to be heard on October 18, 2022. On October 5, 2022, Defendant filed an opposition. On October 11, 2022, Chona filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for July 17, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Chona requests the Court quash the SDT served on the Los Angeles County, Department of Health Services (“deponent”) on May 11, 2022. Defendant also requests the Court impose sanctions on Defendant totaling $1,160.00.

Defendant 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

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Chona was rearended by Defendant in an auto accident in December 2018.

On May 11, 2022, Defendant issued a SDT to the Los Angeles County, Department of Health Services for records relating to Chona. Specifically, the SDT seeks any and all non-privileged records, including payroll records, personnel filed, commission history, attendance records, performance evaluations, employment applications, resume, job description, etc.

Chona claims that Plaintiffs were not aware of the SDT until June 29, 2022. They claimed that although the SDT states it was mailed on May 13, 2022, Plaintiffs never received it by mail. Plaintiff specifically notes that the proof of service only lists Feldman and not the name counsel’s law office.

Defendant alleges that the motion is untimely because notice of the motion needed to be served at least five days prior to the production date of June 4, 2022. Defendant states that the subpoena was properly served via mail, and that Plaintiffs did not make good faith attempts to meet and confer. Defendant states that they offered to modify the subpoena the day after Plaintiffs attempted to meet and confer, but Plaintiffs had already filed this motion.

Despite that, Defendant has agreed to modify the subpoena to only ask for payroll records (excluding tax records), attendance records, workers’ compensation records related to any overlapping injuries, performance review records, and disciplinary records from three years prior to the incident to present.

While the Court agrees that Plaintiffs failed to properly meet and confer prior to filling this motion, filing a motion just hours after sending Defendant an email, the Court finds that the subpoena as served was overbroad. Specifically, the Court sees no reason for Defendant to subpoena Chona’s performance review or disciplinary records in a simple motor vehicle negligence case. Defendant provided no basis for this request. The Court will limit the subpoena to exclude such records.

The Court will not award sanctions. Plaintiffs failed to engage in a good faith attempt to meet and confer prior to filing the motion, but Defendant’s subpoena was overbroad.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Chona A. Chua’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is GRANTED, in part. The Court quashes the subpoena request for performance review and disciplinary records. The subpoena for payroll records (excluding tax records), attendance records and workers’ compensation records related to any overlapping injuries is not quashed.

Plaintiff Chona A. Chua’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

            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.