Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV29649, Date: 2024-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 2, 2024

Case Name: Lopez v. Jobsource, Inc., et al.

Case No.: 22STCV27744 

Matter: Motion to Quash Subpoena 

Moving Party: Defendant Jobsource Downey, Inc. 

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jasson Reyes Lopez  

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an employment action.  On February 16, 2024, Defendant Jobsource Downey, Inc. filed a motion to withdraw its admissions to Plaintiff Jasson Reyes Lopez’s requests for admission nos. 2, 4, 6, 12, 14-16, and 19-22.  In that Motion, Defendant’s agents, Carmen Ruiz and Stephany Torres, indicate that they incorrectly admitted these requests.  Their declarations state that “The responses to the Requests were prepared by Jobsource Downey’s attorney of record at the time, Anahita Kouroshnia, Esq. In reviewing the draft responses prepared by Ms. Kouroshnia, I did not understand what the Requests themselves called for nor what the draft responses meant, or their significance. None of that was explained to me. I relied on Ms. Kouroshnia’s draft responses as being accurate and appropriate, and thus I did not make any changes to those responses, especially due to Ms. Kouroshia’s need to submit the discovery very quickly.”  They also state that “I signed this verification because Ms. Kouroshnia asked me to and told me that it was important to sign it.”

Subsequently, Plaintiff issued a subpoena for appearance and production of documents to Defendant’s former counsel, Kouroshnia, seeking essentially all documents and communications pertaining to the requests for admission at issue.

Defendant Jobsource Downey, Inc. now seeks to quash the subpoena at issue because it inappropriately seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege.  

Plaintiff argues that the privilege has been impliedly waived because Defendant’s communications with Kouroshnia were placed at issue when Defendant filed its motion to withdraw its admissions.  Plaintiff argues that because Defendant contends Kouroshnia pressured and instructed Defendant to perjure itself these communications should be disclosed for a fair adjudication of the withdrawal motion. 

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the court’s own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties “from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.)

“[T]he implied waiver caused by asserting the advice of counsel defense is limited to situations where the client has placed into issue the decisions, conclusions, and mental state of the attorney who will be called as a witness to prove such matters. (Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 188 Cal.App.3d at p. 1053, 233 Cal.Rptr. 825, italics added.) Thus, waiver is established by showing that the client put the otherwise privileged communication directly at issue and that disclosure is essential for a fair adjudication of the action. (Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 128, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 844.)”  (Venture L. Grp. v. Superior Ct. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 96, 105 (internal quotes omitted).)

The Court does not find that the substance of Kouroshnia’s communications have been placed directly at issue by the withdrawal motion.  That motion cannot be fairly characterized as stating that Kouroshnia instructed Defendant to lie or not to review the responses to the requests for admission.  Rather, the declarations of Ruiz and Torres can best be understood as indicating that Kouroshnia prepared Defendant’s responses and that, because of time constraints with respect to discovery deadlines, Defendant did not diligently review Kouroshnia’s suggested responses.  Kouroshnia’s communications do not require examination.  Indeed, the issue is whether Defendant diligently reviewed Kouroshnia’s responses and Kouroshnia’s communications are not sufficiently relevant on this point.  This is particularly true when reviewing the subpoena, which very broadly seeks every aspect of Kouroshnia’s communications with respect to the admissions at issue.

Because the subject subpoena seeks information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the Motion to Quash is granted.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.