Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCP03189, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP03189    Hearing Date: February 27, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner’s request for an order to obtain cellphone records from AT&T for the phone number (303) 865-0267, the number for Petitioner’s insured, Kelin Dobbins, for the time period of 8/1/2024 to 8/31/2024 is GRANTED.

On 10/3/2024, Petitioner Kemper Specialty (Plaintiff) filed a petition against Respondent T-Mobile (Respondent) for the purpose of issuing subpoenas to witnesses for documents.

On 12/6/2024, Petitioner moved to obtain cellphone records from AT&T or, alternatively, to enforce a deposition subpoena.

Discussion

Petitioner moves for an order to obtain cellphone records from AT&T for the phone number (303) 865-0267, the number for Petitioner’s insured, Kelin Dobbins, for the time period of 8/1/2024 to 8/31/2024. Alternatively, Petitioner moves to enforce the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on the Custodian of Records for AT&T regarding Petitioner’s insured, Kelin Dobbins.

CCP section 1987.1 provides in pertinent part:

When a subpoena requires 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 a 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 orders….

CCP section 1985.3(g) states:

(g) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records. Any other consumer or nonparty whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, prior to the date of production, serve on the subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition officer, a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the personal records should be prohibited. No witness or deposition officer shall be required to produce personal records after receipt of notice that the motion has been brought by a consumer, or after receipt of a written objection from a nonparty consumer, except upon order of the court in which the action is pending or by agreement of the parties, witnesses, and consumers affected. The party requesting a consumer’s personal records may bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to enforce the subpoena within 20 days of service of the written objection. The motion shall be accompanied by a declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute between the party requesting the personal records and the consumer or the consumer’s attorney.

In Gilbert v. Infinity Insurance Company (E.D. Cal. 2016) 186 F. Supp. 3d 1075, the court addressed circumstances in which the insured refused to produce un-redacted cell phone records to their insurance carrier as part of the insurance carrier’s investigation of the presented claim. The court indicated that the insurance company required the cell phone records to determine whether there was coverage for the damage claimed and the insured’s failure to produce the required records constituted failure to cooperate. (Id. at 1086.)

Petitioner seeks the production of the cellular phone records on the following grounds: (1) the documents sought are relevant to evaluate the claim submitted by Petitioner’s insured, Mr. Dobbins’ vehicle theft claim that occurred on or about 8/19/2024, (2) Mr. Dobbins has agreed to voluntarily produce the documents sought and signed a consent form (from the cellular subscriber, Kelin Dobbins) as to same, and (3) AT&T has advised Petitioner that a subpoena with Mr. Dobbins’s signed consent is insufficient to release the requested cell phone records, and a court order will be necessary.

Given that Mr. Dobbins has consented to the production of the documents, and given that the issuance of a Court Order is purely sought based on AT&T’s representation that the records would only be produced in response to a Court order, the Court finds no basis for not granting the relief sought.

Based on the foregoing, Petitioner’s request for an order to obtain cellphone records from AT&T for the phone number (303) 865-0267, the number for Petitioner’s insured, Kelin Dobbins, for the time period of 8/1/2024 to 8/31/2024 is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.