Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Jaquan Holland alleges that on February 20, 2023 he was seated in the driver’s seat of his parked car when it was side-swiped by Defendant the City of Culver City’s sanitation utility vehicle, operated by Defendant Derrick Dewayne Smith, causing Plaintiff to sustain injuries.  

At deposition, Plaintiff testified he had been involved in two prior car accidents. (Sherman Decl., ¶ 9.)  However, he could not recall whether any claims were filed. Counsel for the City served a subpoena on State Farm for records regarding plaintiff’s prior accident(s). (Id.) State Farm partially complied with the Subpoena, withholding some documents on the basis of a “work product privilege.” (Sherman Decl., ¶ 7.)  

The City now seeks to compel State Farm to produce the withheld documents.  The City argues Plaintiff has put his medical history at issue, and State Farm’s full compliance with the Subpoena is required “so that the City can obtain discoverable information regarding plaintiff’s medical history and treatment.”  The City also points out that Plaintiff did not object to the Subpoena, nor did Plaintiff file a motion to quash the Subpoena.  There was no opposition filed as of the posting of the tentative ruling.     

LEGAL STANDARD 

The California Code of Civil Procedure permits discovery from a nonparty through a subpoena for the production of business records.  (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2020.010, 2020.020.)  Section 19871.1 authorizes a party seeking discovery from a third-party through a subpoena to bring a motion to compel compliance with that subpoena. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1987.1. The moving party is only required to show that the “production sought is subject to discovery.”  (See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 2025.480(i).) 

“[A] civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad.”  (Yelp Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 1, 15.)  “[A]ny 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 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Id.) “[S]tatutes governing discovery ‘must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.”’ (Id.)  “This means that ‘disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.”’ (Id.)   

The opposing party bears the burden of justifying its refusal to comply with the subpoena.  (See Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 541 (while a propounding party has the burden “of filing a motion to compel if it finds the answers it receives unsatisfactory, the burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond remains at all times with the party resisting” discovery); see also Vasquez v. California Sch. of Culinary Arts, Inc. (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 35, 42 (holding that the “subpoenaed person bears the burden of establishing … inaccessibility” when opposing production of electronically stored information on burden grounds). 

DISCUSSION 

A motion to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena “shall be accompanied by a meet and¿confer¿declaration under¿Section 2016.040”, which “shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion”.  (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2025.480, subd. (b), 2016.040). This requirement “is designed ‘to encourage the parties to work out their differences informally so as to avoid the necessity for a formal order. …’ [Citation.] This, in turn, will lessen the burden on the court and reduce the unnecessary expenditure of resources by litigants through promotion of informal, extrajudicial resolution of discovery disputes.” (Townsend v. Superior Court¿(1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1435.) 

“A reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution entails something more than bickering … Rather, the law requires that counsel attempt to talk the matter over, compare their views, consult, and deliberate.” (Id. at 1439.)¿“Argument is not the same as informal negotiation,” and “debate over the appropriateness of an objection, interspersed between rounds of further interrogation, does not … constitute an earnest attempt to resolve impasses in discovery.” (Id.¿at 1437–1438.) Instead, “‘[t]he parties must present to each other the merits of their respective positions with the same candor, specificity and support during informal negotiations as during the briefing of discovery¿motions.¿Only after all the cards have been laid on the table, and a party has meaningfully assessed the relative strengths and weaknesses of its position in light of all available information, can there be a “sincere” effort to resolve the matter.’” (Id.¿at 1435.) 

Here, Defendants have not filed a meet and confer declaration.  There is no indication Defendants told State Farm they intended to file the instant motion or the grounds for their motion.  Indeed, based on Defendants’ motion, it is unclear why State Farm is asserting work product privilege as to the withheld documents, which would likely have been clarified had Defendants bothered to meet and confer with State Farm.  Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff put his medical condition at issue by filing this lawsuit, and Plaintiff did not object to the Subpoena is beside the point.  Work product privilege (to the extent it applies at all) belongs to State Farm’s attorneys, and Plaintiff could not have waived them on their behalf.   

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to compel State Farm to comply with a deposition subpoena for business records.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 25, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court