Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV32401, Date: 2022-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV32401    Hearing Date: December 6, 2022    Dept: 28

Motion for Protective Order Excusing Production of Documents and Quashing Deposition Subpoena; Request for Monetary Sanctions

            Having considered the moving papers and argument of counsel, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

This is an action that arises out of a collision between two motor vehicles.  Tania Cirelli and Scott Cirelli (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed this action against Parisima Hekmat, Amir Fakhari, and Lili Fakhari (collectively, Defendants) on September 1, 2021, alleging causes of action for (1) motor vehicle and (2) general negligence.

PARTIES’ REQUESTS

On October 10, 2022, Plaintiffs received a copy of a deposition subpoena for production of business records.  The subpoena seeks Plaintiffs’ entire insurance files, without any time limitations, and without any limitation on the scope of the documents that must be produced.  According to Plaintiffs, the issuance of the deposition subpoena has no purpose other than to annoy and harass Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs argue there is no compelling reason why Defendants should have access to Plaintiffs’ lifetime insurance files.  Plaintiffs conclude Defendants’ conduct is a clear abuse of discovery without any justification and request monetary sanctions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

All matters which are not privileged and which are relevant to the subject matter involved in a lawsuit are discoverable under the California Discovery Act.  Code Of Civil Procedure section 2017.010(a) sets forth the general scope of discovery states as follows:

Unless otherwise limited by the order of the court in accordance with this article, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion in that action if the matter either is admissible in evidence or appears reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.

Information that is not relevant or may not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is not discoverable.  A litigant does not waive all rights to privacy as to unrelated matters.  (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864-65.)  A litigant is entitled to retain the confidentiality of information unrelated to the litigation.  (Ibid.)

Even when information sought is relevant to the litigation, the party has a right to privacy as to their confidential financial affairs.  (Cobb v. Superior Court (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550.)  The right of privacy prevents excessive intrusion into matters normally regarded as confidential.  (H&M Associates v. City of El Centro (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 399, 409.)

In challenging the right of a party to take a deposition, Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.410(c) states, “In addition to serving [a] written objection, a party may also move for an order staying the taking of a deposition and quashing the deposition notice.”  With respect to a deposition subpoena, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) authorizes a Motion to Quash, mandating:

If a subpoena requires . . . the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of any issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made . . . 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 such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including a protective 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.”

Monetary Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.2 and 2017.020 provide that the court shall impose a monetary sanction against a party and its counsel who unsuccessfully opposes a motion for protective order without substantial justification.

DISCUSSION

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

This case involves a motor vehicle collision.  (Complaint p. 4-5.)  The nature of Plaintiffs’ claims go to the issue of liability for the incident and subsequent damages.  Defendants attempt to obtain all of Plaintiffs’ auto insurance files.  (Motion, Exh. 2.)  Specifically, the subpoena asks for the production of “[a]ny and all documents and records pertaining to the insurance and claim file . . . including, but not limited to, all payments, policy information, listing of providers, correspondence, all log notes, declaration of coverage, medical records, property damages, repair estimates and repairs, color photographs pertaining” to plaintiff Scott Cirelli.  (Motion, Exh. 2.)  While auto insurance files are certainly related to Plaintiffs’ motor vehicle collision-related claim, it is not clear how all Plaintiffs’ auto insurance files are relevant to this litigation as far as liability for the collision.

Even if Plaintiffs’ insurance records are relevant to the subject matter of litigation, they are protected as private and confidential information and not subject to discovery.

The right to privacy is not absolute, and the Court must balance the right of privacy against the need for discovery.  But the prejudice to Plaintiffs in disclosing all auto insurance records outweighs potential prejudice to Defendants.

Therefore, the motion to quash the deposition subpoena is granted.

Monetary Sanctions

Plaintiffs are entitled to monetary sanctions for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred for this motion.  According to Plaintiffs’ counsel, counsel intended to spend nine hours on this motion at a rate of $400/hour.  Additionally, Plaintiffs spent $74.77 in filing fees.  Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipated an opposition and reply, which were not filed in this case.  The Court finds an award of $1,074.77 more appropriate; 4 hours at a rate of $250 for attempting to informally resolve this dispute, researching and preparing this motion, and time spent in court plus $74.77 in filing fees.

CONCLUSION        

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order excusing production of documents and quashing deposition subpoena is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED.  Sanctions are awarded in the amount of $1,074.77.

Moving party to give notice.