Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV04619, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

On February 7, 2022, Plaintiffs, Teresita Mayela Navarro, individually and as Guardian ad Litem for Natalie Navarro, a minor, Steve Navarro, Valeria Guadalupe Navarro, and Andrew Navarro, filed this wrongful death action against Defendants, Ruben Jesus Jaramilla, Jr. (“Jaramilla”), Andiamo Logistics, Inc., LSE (“Andiamo”), Element Fleet Corporation (“EFC”), Gelco Fleet

Trust, LSR (“GFT”), and Amazon.com Services LLC (“Amazon”). Plaintiff alleges that on September 23, 2021, Jaramilla operated a motor vehicle that collided with a motorcycle operated by decedent Jose Erubey Navarro Maya (“Maya”), and which caused Maya’s death. Plaintiffs allege that the collision occurred during the course and scope of his employment and/or partnership with Andiamo and/or Amazon. Plaintiffs additionally allege that Andiamo, Amazon, EFT, and GFT owned/insured the vehicle Jaramilla operated at the time of the subject accident. Plaintiffs filed the operable First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting causes of action for wrongful death and loss of consortium on March 18, 2022.

On June 23, 2023, Plaintiffs served a deposition subpoena for production of business records on United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”) for records pertaining to Jaramilla. On July 21, 2023, Andiamo, EFC, and Jaramilla (hereinafter, “Defendants”), filed this instant motion to quash Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoenas. On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On September 27, 2023, Defendants filed a reply.

A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “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 . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).

Defendants seek to quash Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoenas on the grounds that the subpoenas are overbroad as to time and scope, violate Jaramilla’s right to privacy, particularly by seeking medical records, and seek irrelevant information. Alternatively, Defendants request to stay enforcement of Plaintiffs’ subpoena pending the Court’s in camera inspection of the produced documents, conduct a hearing and an in-camera inspection prior to production of any documents requested by the subpoena to determine whether any of the requested documents are admissible, and a protective order. Defendants seek monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record in the amount of $1,635.00.

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the deposition subpoena is relevant because it pertains to Jaramilla’s history of driving while employed for UPS, including his previous collisions. Further, Plaintiffs contend that the information sought is relevant to whether Amazon, Andiamo and EFC knew or should have known that Jaramilla was unfit to operate the Amazon truck that killed the decedent. Plaintiffs dispute that they are seeking medical records from UPS but instead seek the full employment file of Jaramilla. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant has not demonstrated the deposition subpoena violates the privacy rights of third parties.

In reply, Defendants reiterate that the subpoena is overboard by requesting “any and all documents” including work injury records and incident reports. Defendants assert that Jaramilla has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his employment records. Last, Defendants argue that the subpoena should be quashed or deemed moot since Plaintiffs have withdrawn the subject subpoenas.

In a supplemental declaration permitted by the Court, Plaintiffs clarify that the subject deposition subpoena has not been withdrawn. Furthermore, Plaintiffs contend that despite asking for “any and all records” from UPS, they are amenable to a narrowed timeframe of 2005-2013 for the subpoena’s scope. Plaintiffs assert that Jaramilla worked at UPS from the early 1990s until he was terminated in 2013 following a DUI incident, thus the period of eight years prior to his termination in 2013 is a reasonable compromise. Plaintiffs argue that the limited scope of the subpoenas to the period of eight years is not so far removed from the subject incident giving rise to this instant lawsuit that it may result in the purported prejudice claimed by Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that they proposed a formal stipulation to limit the scope of the subpoena to the 2005-2013 timeframe and defense counsel did not agree to this proposed scope.

Here, Plaintiffs have shown that the scope of the subject deposition subpoena is necessary as it pertains to Jaramilla’s history of driving while employed at UPS, his fitness to drive at the subsequent places of employment, and whether those subsequent places of employment were aware of his driving history because Jaramilla placed his record as a delivery driver at issue in this case. Further, Plaintiffs have limited the timeframe of the subpoena to a reasonable period of eight years. Although Plaintiffs seek records up to 18 years preceding the subject incident, they do not seek records for the entire 18 year period. As such, the Court rejects Defendants’ objections based on invasion of privacy and irrelevancy. Accordingly, the motion to quash deposition subpoena is DENIED. In addition, Plaintiffs assert that they do not seek Jaramilla’s medical records, but the subpoena language as currently stated does not make that distinction, thus Defendants’ motion for protective order is GRANTED.

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (d).)

Defendants seek sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record in the amount of $1,635.00. Defendants’ counsel charges an hourly billing rate of $175.00 per hour. (Stone Decl. ¶9.) Counsel claims he spent 4 hours preparing this motion and the Separate Statement, anticipates he will spend 2 hours to review the opposition and prepare a reply, 1 hour to appear at the hearing, and incurred a $60.00 filing fee. (Id.)

Defendants’ counsel’s hourly billing rate of $175.00 per hour is reasonable. The Court finds that Plaintiffs successfully opposed this instant motion such that imposition of the sanction would be unjust. Accordingly, the Court does not award sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,635.00 is also DENIED.

Defendants’ request for protective order regarding medical records is GRANTED.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. 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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court