Judge Jill Feeney, Case 20STCV20275 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

On September 1, 2022, Defendant served a subpoena on Plaintiff’s insurer Hereford Insurance Company seeking production of Plaintiff’s insurance records and file with the insurer. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s subpoena is (1) overbroad and (2) seeks information that is irrelevant, inadmissible, and protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant refused to modify the subpoena after reasonable meet and confer efforts.

Defendant argues on opposition that the subpoena is properly limited to the injuries described in Plaintiff’s Complaint and the subject incident. Defendant additionally argues that Plaintiff omitted meet and confer communications between the parties and that Plaintiff ignored Defendant’s attempt to resolve this issue informally.

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 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 those terms or 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 person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”¿

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a) states, in relevant part, “. . . in making an order pursuant to motion made . . . under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification . . . .”¿

[E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. . . . [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective . . . [meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value. (Lantz v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855 [internal quotes and citations omitted].)

When evaluating invasions of the right to privacy in discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion of privacy.” (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865.) A responding party may prevail by negating any of these three elements “or by pleading and proving, as an affirmative defense, that the invasion of privacy is justified because it substantively furthers one or more countervailing interests.” (Id.) “[T]he party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 533.) A court then balances these competing considerations. (Id.) As guidance in balancing these competing considerations, it should be noted, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Id.) When lesser interests are at stake, “the strength of the countervailing interest sufficient to warrant disclosure of private information var[ies] according to the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures.” (Id.)

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides that “the court may in its discretion award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing [a motion to quash], including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 1987.2(a).) Additionally, sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Pro. section 2023.030, subd. (a). ) A misuse of discovery includes “persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.” (Code Civ. Pro. section 2023, subd. (a).)

All claim file documents related to Hereford Insurance Company Policy Number CA315007-1 regarding claimant Mary Natasja, aka Natasja Shah Date of Birth 12/24/1972; Date of Loss 04/26/2021, including inspection reports including all attachments and/or exhibits, record statements, written statements, claim forms, photographs, videotapes, diagrams, traffic collisions reports, property damage appraisals, correspondence and communications with Mary Natasja Sha, aka Natasja Shah and anyone acting on her behalf.

All documentation, writing and reports regarding any injuries claimed by Mary Natasja Shah, aka Natasja Shah Date of Birth 12/24/1972 involving her head, headaches, neck, left shoulder, left knee, back, nose bleeds, stress, anxiety and/or cognitive issues and all reports relating in any manner to the evaluation and treatment of said claimed injuries.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s subpoena is overbroad because it is a blanket subpoena for all of Plaintiff’s insurance records. Plaintiff’s written objection to the subpoena states that the subpoena will result in records that are irrelevant and requests that the subpoena be limited to those concerning the body parts and injuries she has placed at issue.

The subpoena appears to request records concerning a vehicle collision which took place in April 2021. The parties dispute whether the subpoena is properly limited to a single event and the injuries at issue or whether the subpoena is a blanket subpoena intended to reach every single record pertaining to Plaintiff.

Defendant has a legitimate discovery interest in obtaining documents pertaining to the injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of the subject incident. Plaintiff alleges she suffered injuries to her head, neck, shoulder, left knee, back, nosebleeds, stress, and anxiety. (Motion, p. 6.) Plaintiff also alleges that she suffers from headaches and experiences cognitive issues as a result of the subject incident. (Id.) At Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff stated she made no other claims for personal injury, including after the April 2021 collision. (Opp., Exh. B.) Defendant has a discovery interest in obtaining records from Plaintiff’s insurer to confirm Plaintiff’s testimony.

The parties’ misunderstanding appears to stem from the confusing format of the subpoena. Plaintiff alleges that the first sentence of the subpoena is a blanket demand for all of Plaintiff’s insurance records. Plaintiff claims that the later inclusion of language limiting the request to the injuries at issue is ineffective because the first sentence demands all of Plaintiff’s records. Defendant argues that the subpoena is properly limited to a single incident and the to the injuries at issue.

An examination of the subpoena shows that it is unclear to the point that it may result in production of records unrelated to the injuries at issue. The heading of the subpoena and the first paragraph do limit the subpoena to the vehicle collision in April 2021. However, the language limiting the document requested to those documents involving the injuries at issue could be interpreted as a separate request that does not limit the documents requested in the first paragraph. Consequently, there is a risk that the insurer could produce all documents related to the April 2021 vehicle collision without limitation as to the injuries at issue. Additionally, there is a risk the insurer could produce all of Plaintiff’s records relating to the injuries at issue without limitation as to the time. Accordingly, Defendant’s subpoena is modified to cover only the items pertaining to the injuries claimed in the instant case.

With respect to sanctions, the Court finds that both parties acted with substantial justification. Although the subpoena is not so overbroad as to be a blanket subpoena, it is still unclear to the point that it may result in an overbroad production of documents. Both parties pursued or opposed the motion to protect their respective privacy or discovery interests. The Court thus declines to grant sanctions. That said, the Court does note that this dispute should have been resolved without Court intervention.