Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 23STCV16480, Date: 2025-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16480    Hearing Date: February 10, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff Zohreh Shayan filed this action for harassment and retaliation against Defendants Ali Sadrieh, DPM, Inc. and Ali Sadrieh.

            On December 2, 2024, Defendants issued subpoenas to Chase Bank, Paypal, Inc., Stripe Payments Company, Venmo, Inc., and Zelle, seeking Plaintiff’s financial records.

            On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash the subpoenas. Defendants filed their opposition on January 28, 2025. Plaintiff filed her reply on February 3, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party] . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a), (b).) Good cause must be shown to compel a nonparty to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)  

DISCUSSION

            “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) If the court finds a privacy interest, the court must balance the privacy concerns against the need for the information. (Id. at p. 552.) Discovery of private information is governed by the more stringent standard of direct relevance in order to prevent a fishing expedition of “tangentially pertinent sensitive information.” (Boler v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472.) “The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance.” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

            “[A] party has a privacy interest in his or her personal financial records.” (Babcock v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 721, 723.) Here, the subpoenas seek all financial records pertaining to Plaintiff from Chase, Paypal, Venmo, Stripe, and Zelle. (Mtn., Ex. A.) Plaintiff has a privacy interest in these records, which necessarily implicate her personal transactions unrelated to the case.

Defendants argue that the information is necessary to ascertain Plaintiff’s mitigation of damages. Plaintiff testified that she owns a business called Mouve, which receives payment from one client named Psycle Health through the payment processor Stripe. This does not constitute good cause for the broad swath of documents sought by the subpoenas, which seek “any and all” account statements from numerous financial institutions. (See Mtn., Ex. A.) Defendants have failed to show that such records are directly relevant to the issues in the case.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motion to quash is GRANTED.