Judge: David A. Hoffer, Case: 30-19-01054917Morsevs.EstateofRichardNicholson, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court at present is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Renew Opposition to City of Newport Beach’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Production of Documents and Things Pursuant to C.C.P. § 1008(B),” filed on 5/3/22.  The Motion is DENIED.

As a preliminary matter, although the Motion is brought under C.C.P. § 1008(b), that provision applies only to a renewed motion brought by the “party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on terms.” (C.C.P. § 1008(b).)  The prior motion to quash – to which Plaintiffs here are attempting to renew their opposition - was brought by the City of Newport Beach (“City”). No basis for reconsideration under §1008(b) is thus shown here.

Nor have Plaintiffs shown that a contrary result is warranted here in any event. As noted in the Court’s 1/25/21 ruling, the Plaintiffs’ interest in this case in obtaining discovery to assist them with their civil action for damages was (and here still is) outweighed by the public interest in solving a triple murder and bringing the perpetrator to justice and the potential chilling effect that disclosure could have on obtaining cooperation from witnesses who believed their information would be confidential until the criminal trial. (County of Orange v. Sup.Ct. (Wu) (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759, 767.) Nothing presented in the current Motion compels a contrary conclusion. To the contrary, the fact that the accused perpetrator is now awaiting trial demonstrates that – unlike the circumstances in County of Orange – the time period in which the public interest will outweigh those of the Plaintiffs here is necessarily finite, although not yet completed.

However, if Plaintiffs believe that the information they seek is essential to their case, a stay may need to be entered in this action. Plaintiffs previously did not wish for a stay to be imposed, despite the prior ruling on the discovery here at issue: if they now have a contrary view, they should be prepared to address that at the time of the hearing.

Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d), as to the existence of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.) Plaintiffs evidentiary objections, filed with their reply, are OVERRULED.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this ruling.