Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV43972, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV43972 Hearing Date: October 27, 2022 Dept: 28
Plaintiffs Hilda Pena and Shirley Lizbeth Hernandez-Pena's Motion to Quash Subpoena of Records to Super Collision Center
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Hilda Pena (“Pena”) and Shirley Lizbeth Hernandez-Pena (“Hernandez-Pena”) filed this action against Defendants Numark Transporation, inc. (“Numark”) and Andre L. Swilley (“Swilley”) for motor vehicle negligence.
On March 21, 2022, Numark filed an answer.
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena of Records to Super Collision Center. to be heard on October 4, 2022. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed an opposition.
Trial is currently scheduled for May 31, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Plaintiffs request the Court quash or modify the subpoena served on Super Collision Center (“Deponent”). Plaintiffs also request the Court impose sanctions on Defendants totaling $1,686.65.
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
On August 31, 2022, Defendants issue a subpoena on Deponent, Pena’s employer, for Pena’s complete personnel file, including her performance evaluations, insurance records, workers’ compensation and/or disability records, and payroll information. There is no limitation as to scope.
Plaintiffs are amenable to allowing production for paystubs or other income documentation and documents reflecting any time missed from work. Plaintiffs are also amenable to the production of medical records pertaining to body parts Plaintiff has placed at issue, documents reflecting disability or workers’ compensation benefits paid out in relation to the incident, and reports pertaining to accidents and/or incidents which resulted in injuries to the subject body parts. The Court finds this request reasonable, as it maintain Plaintiffs’ right to privacy while balancing Defendants right to discovery. The Court grants the motion and modifies the subpoena to be limited to the above.
Plaintiffs request sanctions totaling $1,686.65 based upon 6.5 hours of attorney’s work, at a rate of $250.00 per hour, and one $61.65 filling fee. The Court awards sanctions totaling $811.65, based upon 3 hours of attorney’s work and one $61.65 filing fee.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs Hilda Pena and Shirley Lizbeth Hernandez-Pena's Motion to Quash Subpoena of Records to Super Collision Center is GRANTED. The subpoena is modified to only request records for: paystubs or other income documentation and documents reflecting any time missed from work, medical records pertaining to body parts Plaintiff has placed at issue, documents reflecting disability or workers’ compensation benefits paid out in relation to the incident, and reports pertaining to accidents and/or incidents which resulted in injuries to the subject body parts.
Plaintiffs Hilda Pena and Shirley Lizbeth Hernandez-Pena's Request for Sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants and Defendants counsel are ordered to pay Plaintiffs sanctions totaling $811.65 within 30 days of the hearing on this 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.