Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01225376, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling
Defendant Jennifer Pan’s motion to quash by Defendant Emad Yassa's deposition subpoenas served on State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, is granted.
This is an action for injuries resulting from a car collision. Plaintiff George Stern sued both the driver of the car he was in, Defendant Yassa, and the driver of the other car, Defendant Pan. Defendant Pan filed a Cross-Complaint, which has been dismissed with prejudice. (ROA 13, 26, 90.)
Yassa served two deposition subpoenas on Pan’s insurance company. Yassa sought testimony from State Farm’s custodian of records and person most knowledge authenticating two letters he had received from State Farm and describing facts and conclusions supporting the latter. (Meunch Decl., Exhs. A and B.)
Applicable Law
Any party to the action or the witness may bring a motion to quash a subpoena and may request the court to quash it entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon those terms and 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 moving party from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the moving party’s right of privacy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Grounds for the motion include that the records sought are not within the permissible scope of discovery, are protected by privacy rights, are not relevant to the subject matter, or are unjustly burdensome or oppressive demands. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) ¶ 8:598.)
A deposition subpoena that commands production of business records for copying “shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item, and shall specify the form in which any electronically stored information is to be produced, if a particular form is desired.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (a) [emphasis added].) Generalized demands are not permitted. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 218, 221.)
Even highly relevant, non-privileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a right to privacy.
Relevance
As a general rule, discovery is limited only by relevance in the larger sense – that is, information is discoverable if it is (1) relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and (2) either admissible in evidence or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Norton v. Superior Court (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1750, 1755.)
Relevancy to the subject matter of the litigation is a much broader concept than relevancy to the precise issues presented by the pleadings. [Citation.] “The ‘subject matter of the action’ is the circumstances and facts out of which the cause of action arises; it is the property, contract, or other thing involved in the dispute; it is not the act or acts which constitute the cause of action, but describes physical facts in relation to which the suit is prosecuted.” [Citation.] Information is “relevant to the subject matter” if its discovery will tend to promote settlement [citation] or assist the party in preparing for trial [citation].
(Id. at p. 1760.)
There is no apparent basis upon which the testimony sought by Yassa from State Farm is relevant, even in the broadest sense. State Farm is not a party to this action and was not a percipient witness to the accident.
In the absence of opposition, Yassa has not shown how discovery of such information is calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that is admissible.
Right to Privacy
Pan contends that discovery from her insurance company about issues relating to her, violates her right to privacy.
“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. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)
The information sought must be directly relevant to a claim or defense. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665 [disapproved on other grounds].) A compelling interest is required to justify an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy. However, when “lesser interests are at stake . . . the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information varying according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 556.) Discovery will not be ordered as to matters protected by privacy rights if the information sought is available from other sources or less intrusive means. (Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 453.)
Pan points to Insurance Code sections 791 and 791.13.
The purpose of this article is to establish
standards for the collection, use and disclosure of information gathered in
connection with insurance transactions . . . ; to maintain a balance between
the need for information by those conducting the business of insurance and
the public's need for fairness in insurance information practices, including
the need to minimize intrusiveness; . . . ; to limit the disclosure of
information collected in connection with insurance transactions; . . . .
(Ins. Code, § 791.) “An insurance institution, agent, or insurance-support organization shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure" is authorized by the insured or reasonably necessary. (Ins. Code, § 791.13.)
In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 1983.5 defines the insurance company’s records for her as consumer records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (a)(1).)
Here, in the absence of any opposition by Yassa, Yassa has not made the required showing of a particularized need.
The motion to quash the subpoena is granted.
Pan is awarded sanctions against Yassa. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010.) Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Yassa shall pay $1,210 to Gates, Gonter, Guy, Proudfoot & Muench, LLP.
Pan shall give notice of the ruling on all parties and on third party State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.