Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV16848, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16848    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

At issue are RFP Nos. 14 and 15 of Defendant Chloe Abrams’ Request for Production, Set Two. The parties attended an IDC on January 7, 2025, but the issue was not resolved. Defendant now moves the Court to compel further responses requiring Plaintiff to provide phone records and text message logs for one hour before and after the incident or, in the alternative, to sign an Authorization to Release Cellular and Messaging Records.

RFP No. 14 requests:
"Cell phone records for all cell phones you owned or had possession of on the date of the subject accident that show all calls made and/or received within one (1) hour prior to the subject accident to one (1) hour after the subject accident."

RFP No. 15 requests:
"True and correct copies of all documents reflecting all incoming or outgoing texts for all cell phones you owned or had possession of on the date of the subject accident, for one (1) hour prior to the subject accident to one (1) hour after the subject accident."

Plaintiff provides the following identical response to both RFPs:
"After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Plaintiff is unable to locate any nonprivileged documents in his possession, custody, or control that are responsive to the request. Plaintiff has never possessed any non-privileged documents responsive to this request. However, Plaintiff’s cellular phone provider, and others, may be in possession of nonprivileged documents that are responsive to this request."

Plaintiff argues that these responses are Code-compliant. However, under Regency Health Services, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1504, a party has a duty to conduct a reasonable investigation and furnish information from all sources under his control. While Plaintiff acknowledges that the cellular provider may have the requested documents, the response does not indicate any effort to obtain them.  Plaintiff has an obligation to pursue responsive information from third parties if those records are within his control or obtainable by reasonable means, such as a request to the provider. Plaintiff’s responses suggest that Plaintiff has not attempted to obtain these records from the cell phone provider. Therefore, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry to locate documents within Plaintiff's control.

As to Plaintiff’s argument regarding privacy, "an actionable claim [for invasion of privacy] requires three essential elements: (1) the claimant must possess a legally protected privacy interest; (2) the claimant’s expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable; and (3) the invasion of privacy complained of must be serious in both its nature and scope." (County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905, 926, citations omitted.)

Before addressing whether Defendant has a compelling interest in the documents and whether the requests are narrowly tailored, Plaintiff as the objecting party bears the burden to first establish the elements of an invasion of privacy claim. Plaintiff failed to do so in the opposition, as there is no legal authority supporting a legally protected privacy interest in call or text logs. Britt and Lantz, cited by Plaintiff, do not address call or text logs.

Additionally, Plaintiff does not discuss whether there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific documents requested or whether the alleged invasion is serious in both nature and scope. If the request is limited to call logs or text logs, not actual transcripts of phone calls or text messages, the Court does not find the invasion serious in nature and scope, particularly given that the request is confined to one hour before and after the alleged incident. Defendant also concedes that it does not seek to identify whom Plaintiff spoke to or texted. (Reply at 2.) The Court finds the request narrowly tailored to determine the duration, time, and number of calls or texts, which are relevant to Defendant’s defense that Plaintiff was using a cell phone at the time of the incident.

Accordingly, the motion is granted. Plaintiff may either sign an authorization for Defendant to subpoena the call/text logs for the specified time frame or obtain the records himself and produce them.

Defendant requests $448 in sanctions.  Such sanctions are mandatory unless the Court finds that Plaintiff’s position was substantially justified.  The Court does not so find – the bases upon which this motion is granted are basic principles of discovery that did not warrant dispute.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and his counsel are hereby sanctioned $448, jointly and severally, to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel within 20 days of this order.

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’s 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