Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV12537, Date: 2023-01-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12537    Hearing Date: January 18, 2023    Dept: 28

Plaintiff Jonie A. Del Moral 's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records

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

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2021, Plaintiff Jonie A. Del Moral (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants YWCA of San Gabriel Valley (“YWCA”), Chiu Rung Ho Chen (“Chiu”) and Chii Chen (“Chii”) for motor vehicle negligence.

On August 4, 2021, Defendants filed an answer. On September 26, 2022, the Court dismissed Chii, without prejudice, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records to be heard on January 18, 2023. On January 4, 2023, Defendants filed an opposition. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is currently scheduled for January 24, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff requests the Court quash Chii and Chiu’s (“Relevant Defendants”) subpoena for records served on Emazing Group (“Deponent”) and impose $1,560.00 in sanctions on Relevant Defendants.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion, and grant sanctions totaling $330.00 on Plaintiff.

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

Motion to Quash

Discovery closed on August 30, 2022, corresponding to the original trial date of September 29, 2022. Trial was continued thrice due to scheduling difficulties—at no point did the Court re-open or extend discovery.

Relevant Defendants issued a subpoena for records to Deponent, Plaintiff’s employer, on November 21, 2022. Defendants allege that this was due to the fact that the previous address for Deponent was “bad” and they needed to locate the proper facility to serve. Once Defendants received the noticed motion, Defendants withdrew the subpoena and have agreed to destroy any records produced in response to the belated subpoena.

Plaintiff notes that Defendants have not provided proof of withdrawal, nor do Defendants have a good excuse for the untimely subpoena. Plaintiff provided discovery responses noting Deponent as a former employment over a year before the subpoena was served, providing ample time to identify an address and serve a timely subpoena.

The Court, in the interest of caution, grants the motion to quash. Should the subpoena already be withdrawn, the quashing of the subpoena will be moot.

Sanctions

The Court finds sanctions appropriate; while Defendants claim that service of the meet and confer was not proper, resulting in their delayed response, the Court finds that Defendants were provided sufficient notice of the attempt to meet and confer. Plaintiff then waited a week to file, providing a reasonable amount of time for Defendants to either respond or indicate that there were issues making it difficult to confer at this time.

Plaintiff requests sanctions totaling $1,560.00, based upon 3 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $500.00 per hour, and one $60.00 filling fee. Time spent is based upon 1 hour drafting the motion, 1 hour reviewing and replying to any opposition and 1 hour preparing for the hearing. The Court grants sanctions totaling $660.00, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work at a reasonable rate of $200.00 per hour.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Jonie A. Del Moral's Motion to Quash Subpoena for Records is GRANTED. The subpoena is quashed.

Plaintiff Jonie A. Del Moral's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Chii, Chiu and Relevant Defendants’ Counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiff $660.00 in sanctions, 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.