Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV07558, Date: 2025-02-28 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle negligence; and (2) negligence.

On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to quash subpoenas (the “Motion”). On February 14, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition (the “Opposition”). On February 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a single motion seeking to quash eight subpoenas. There is no legal authority or rule of Court permitting Plaintiff to improperly combine eight separate motions to be heard together absent a Court order permitting such. The California Rules of Court only permit the combining of the papers in support of the same motion. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112(c).) Rather, each motion requires a separate notice, a motion, and memorandum in support. (Rules of Court, Rule 3.1112(a).) Accordingly, motions to quash separate discovery requests should be filed separately. Moreover, combining motions avoids payment of separate filing fees and deprives the Court of filing fees it is otherwise entitled to collect. While the Court declines to decide this Motion on procedural grounds, Plaintiff is ordered to pay the additional $420.00 in filing fees he would have paid had he properly filed eight separate motions to quash.

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1987.1 states, “[w]hen a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, …, upon motion reasonably made by the party, the witness, or any consumer described in Section 1985.3, or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (Id.) A motion to quash does require a separate statement, unless the party being subpoenaed did not provide any response to the subpoena. (Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5), (b)(6).)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (CCP § 2017.010.)

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoenas for insurance records issued to Infinity Insurance Company, Gallagher Bassett Service, Inc., Integon National Insurance Company and The Travelers Indemnity Company. Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are not relevant to the claim because they seek insurance records from other accidents which are not at issue in the instant action. (Mot. p. 3:1-28.) Plaintiff further argues that the subpoenas violate his right to privacy and are overly broad. (Mot. pp. 4:3-6:20.) Defendant has agreed to withdraw the subpoenas issued to Infinity Insurance Company. (Rafael Decl., Ex. M.)

Defendant argues that the requested information is relevant because the subpoenas seek insurance claim files regarding Plaintiff’s other accidents, including motor vehicle accidents, which may have resulted in similar injuries and medical treatment to those claimed in the current litigation. (Opp. pp. 2:17-21.)

The subpoenas here seek documents and information pertaining to other insurance claims for which Plaintiff has claimed similar injuries to those claimed in this action. (Mot., Exs. A-H [subpoenas], N [Responses to Form Interrogatories “FIs”].) Plaintiff has alleged that the accident caused injury to his neck, upper back and lower back. (Mot., Ex. N [Response FIs, Nos. 6.3, 6.7].) Plaintiff responded in discovery that he has been involved in other accidents causing injury to his neck, upper back and lower back. (Mot., Ex. N [Response FIs, Nos. 10.1. 10.3, 11.1].) Thus, the subpoenas seek information that is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s objection that the subpoenas are overly broad is unpersuasive, as they are narrowly tailored to specific accident claims occurring within a defined timeframe—spanning four years before and one year after the accident at issue. Accordingly, the subpoenas are appropriately limited in both time and scope. (Mot., Exs. A-H, N.)

The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust (CCP, § 2025.410 subd. (d).)

Defendant requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,440.00 based upon counsel’s rate of $240/hour for: (1) 3.0 to 4.0 hours on meet and confer communications and drafting the Opposition; and (2) 2.0 hours preparing for and attending the hearing on this Motion. (Dondanville Decl., ¶ 8.) The Court will award 3.0 hours for time spent meeting and conferring and drafting the Opposition. In addition, as the hearing on this matter will likely not exceed 0.5 hours, the Court will award 1.0 hour for preparing for and attending the hearing. Thus, Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $960.00.

The Motion to Quash is DENIED. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay sanctions to Defendant in the amount of $960.00 within 20 days of this order. Plaintiff is further ordered to pay $420.00 in unpaid filing fees to the Court within 20 days of this order.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court