Judge: Kimberly Knill, Case: 30-2022-01245443-CU-PO-CJC, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things on Kevin J. Price or, in the Alternative for Protective Order and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel

The motion of defendant Tatiana J. Freitas, individually and as trustee of the Tatiana J. Freitas Living Trust, to quash service of the deposition subpoena of Kevin J. Price is GRANTED.  The alternative motion for protective order is DENIED for failure to meet and confer.

The deponent is defendant’s attorney.  Depositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely restricted, and require extremely good cause.  (Carehouse Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558, 1562 (Carehouse).)

Requests 1, 2, 3: Plaintiff has not shown the information sought is not available from Saddleback Plumbing, defendant, or herself.  (Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1563.)

Requests 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: The court need not decide whether Price was acting as an adjuster or attorney because plaintiff has not shown his training as an insurance adjuster is crucial to her claims for trespass and nuisance. (Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1563.)

Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED because defendant failed to meet and confer with plaintiff as to the issue of the protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a).)

Defendant to give notice.

Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things on AIG Property Casualty Company C/O Becky DeGeorge or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order and Request for Monetary Sanctions Against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s Counsel

The motion of defendant Tatiana J. Freitas, individually and as trustee of the Tatiana J. Freitas Living Trust, to quash service of the deposition subpoena of AIG Property Casualty Company is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Document Requests

Request 1:  DENIED.  Defendant has not shown no additional insurance policy documents may exist.

Request 2:  DENIED.  Communications sought are between AIG and plaintiff, so Bank of America, N.A. v. Superior Court (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1076 (Bank of America) and Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424 (Soltani) are inapplicable. 

Request 3:  GRANTED.  The request seeks documents protected by the attorney work product doctrine. 

Request 4:  GRANTED.  Defendant did not waive all privileged communications between herself and AIG.

Request 5:  GRANTED.  The request is broad enough to include documents protected by the attorney work product doctrine.

Request 6:  GRANTED.  The information can be obtained from Saddleback Plumbing.

Request 7:  GRANTED.  The request seeks documents that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and tripartite attorney-client privilege

Topics

Topics 1, 8:  DENIED.  These topics seek communications between AIG and plaintiff.

Topic 7:  DENIED. Plaintiff can seek information about the insurance policy under which defendant submitted her claim.

Topic 14:  GRANTED.  The information is more properly sought from defendant, not AIG.

Topics 2-6 and 9-13:  GRANTED.  These topics seeks testimony on communications between AIG, its attorney and defendant that are protected.

Sanctions are DENIED due to the mixed result.

Defendant to give notice.