Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This case arises from a car-pedestrian accident.  On March 16, 2021, Defendant Ismael Israel Sanchez was driving a commercial van when entering the crosswalk where Plaintiff Tara Steudemann was walking.  Plaintiff claims the pedestrian light was illuminated when Defendant hit her.    

The accident occurred at approximately 1:15 pm. (Ex. D.).  Plaintiff requested production of Defendant’s cell phone records for one hour before and one hour after the accident. Initially, Defendant only objected to the request, and did not produce any records.  (Ex. A.)  Following meet and confer efforts, Defendant produced a screenshot of the information requested, which showed calls made at 1:04 pm, 1:17 pm, and 1:18 pm. (Ex. B.)  The screenshot showed only the phone number called, the date of the phone call, and the time the phone call began.  The records did not show the length of the phone call, which is critical to showing whether Defendant was on the phone when the accident occurred.   

The parties met and conferred further, and Plaintiff requested a complete copy of the phone records at issue, including the length of the calls.  Defendant’s counsel stated that the screenshot is all that would be produced.  Therefore, Plaintiff requested that Defendant sign an authorization so Plaintiff can subpoena the records directly from AT&T, as AT&T will not produce the records without a signed authorization from the phone number owner.  However, Defendant refused to provide a signed authorization. (Ex. C.)  

The parties attended an informal discovery conference.  During the conference, Defendant agreed to produce the length of the phone calls at or near the approximate time of the accident. The next day, Defendant advised Plaintiff that screenshots showing the length of the calls were no longer available to Defendant. (Ex. E.) Defendant further stated that Defendant’s attempts to obtain the records directly from AT&T were futile, stating that “[they] believe [Plaintiff] will need to file the motion” to gain possession of the phone records.  (Ex. E.) 

This hearing is on Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to authorize release of his phone records.  Plaintiff argues the phone records are relevant and within Defendant’s control, as Defendant has the ability to request them from AT&T.  Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be compelled to sign an authorization so that Plaintiff may request the records from AT&T.  There is no opposition filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

ANALYSIS 

 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s phone records are relevant and should be produced.  The Court agrees.   

In accordance with “the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should generally be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 161, 173). Under California Civil Procedure, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action…, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010).  

Evidence that Defendant was on the phone while driving his car and hitting Plaintiff is clearly relevant and admissible.  Indeed, Defendant requested that Plaintiff disclose her telephone records because Defendant accused Plaintiff of being on her phone at the time of the accident.  Plaintiff produced her phone records, showing she was in fact not on her telephone at the time of the accident.   

Case law also clearly demonstrates that Defendant’s AT&T phone records are within Defendant’s control.  Any party may obtain discovery by inspecting, copying, testing, or sampling documents, including electronically stored information, in the possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010). This includes phone records, which are considered within a party’s control if the party has the legal right to obtain them upon demand. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.010; Juror Number One v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 854, 864.).)  

In any event, given that Defendant has claimed he cannot access the records sought, Plaintiff is entitled to subpoena phone records one hour before and one hour after the accident directly from AT&T.  To do so, Plaintiff requires Defendant’s authorization, which the Court compels Defendant to provide.    

Plaintiff also seeks sanctions.  Monetary sanctions must be awarded against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion to compel responses unless there is a finding of “substantial justification” on behalf of the losing party or other circumstances render the sanction “unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.290, subd. (c).)  Moreover, Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.030 (a) and 2023.010 (d) provide that the Court may order sanctions against a party who fails to respond to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010, subd. (d); 2023.030, subd. (a).)  

The Court concludes sanctions are warranted because Defendant has not shown a substantial justification for refusing to provide the requested phone records.  Nor do circumstances exist that render the award of sanctions unjust.  Defendant has control over the phone records which are clearly relevant, and could have produced them to Plaintiff, but he refuses to do so.   

In calculating the amount of sanctions, the Court starts with the lodestar.  “Under the lodestar method, attorney fees are calculated by first multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate of compensation.”  (See Ketchum v. Moses (2011) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1136; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 48, fn. 23.).) 

Plaintiff’s counsel charges a billable rate of $200 per hour.  Counsel has been practicing for six years, and prior to working for Gomez Trial Attorneys, he worked at the City Attorney’s office where he took over 30 criminal jury trials to verdict.  He was also team lead in the General Trial Unit.  The Court concludes his hourly rate of $200 is reasonable for an attorney of his experience, in the Southern California legal market.   

As to the hours expended, Plaintiff’s counsel spent four hours conducting the necessary research and drafting the instant motion.  In addition, counsel expects to spend one hour preparing a reply to any opposition, as well as one hour to prepare and attend the hearing on this motion.  (Carraway Decl., ¶ 8.)  The Court concludes these hours are reasonable, except for the hour to prepare a reply, as there was no opposition.  At a billable rate of $200.00 dollars per hour for 5 hours, the Court awards a total sanction of $1,000.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant to authorize release of phone records.  The Court awards sanctions of $1,000 in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant and his counsel, jointly and severally.       

 

DATED:  January 9, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court