Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 22STLC07268, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC07268    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

MOVING PARTY:    Defendant LA Best Auto Sales, Inc.

RESP. PARTY:         Plaintiff Danny Villalobos

MOTION TO QUASH

(CCP § 1987.1)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant LA Best Auto Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of April 26, 2023                [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of April 26, 2023                [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff Danny Villalobos (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Defendants LA Best Auto Sales, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Western Surety Company. On October 12, 2019, Defendant sold Plaintiff a 2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse (the “Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misrepresented the Vehicle’s condition prior to the sale. On January 10, 2023, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (the “Subpoena”) on a third party, Manheim Investments, Inc. (“Manheim”).

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Manheim Investments, Inc. (the “Motion”) on February 2, 2023.

II.              Legal Standard

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), § 1987.1 (a).) A separate statement is required for a motion to quash. (California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1345(a)(5).) This separate statement must set forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled. (CRC Rule 3.1345(c).)

“A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . . .” (CCP § 2020.410 (a).)

Current discovery standards hold that, “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 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039.)

III.            Discussion

Defendant has not filed a separate statement as required by CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5). However, in the interests of judicial efficiency and expediency, the Court will address the merits of the Motion to Quash.

The subpoena seeks three categories of documents: (1) Any bills of sale for the SUBJECT VEHICLE for the periods of October 2017 and 12 October 2019; (2) Any condition reports relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE for the periods of October 2017 and 12 October 2019; (3) Any inspection reports available relating to the SUBJECT VEHICLE for the periods of October 2017 and 12 October 2019. (Mot., Exh. 1.)

The subpoena is not unduly burdensome or overbroad because the categories are limited to documents related to the Vehicle and are limited to a two year time frame. Defendant argues that the requests are unduly burdensome and overly broad which will require the nonparty Manheim to expend excessive time and costs in locating documents. However, this is unsupported by any evidence that documents relating to the Vehicle over a two-year period would require excessive time or costs in locating. Thus, the subpoena is not unduly burdensome or overbroad.

The subpoena does not seek irrelevant information because the categories in the subpoena are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff is claiming that Defendant misrepresented the condition of the Vehicle prior to sale, specifically, that the Vehicle was involved in a major accident, underwent substandard repair, and as a result had structural damage to the frame/unibody, had mechanical defects, or unrepaired damage. (Compl., ¶ 18.) Further, Plaintiff alleges he would not have purchased the Vehicle if he had known about the alleged defects. (Compl., ¶ 18.) Categories (2) and (3) in the subpoena are directly relevant to the claims that the Vehicle’s prior condition was not fully disclosed. Additionally, category (1) is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because any bills of sale may contain evidence of the condition of the vehicle or lead to its discovery.

Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant LA Best Auto Sales, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.