Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV17138, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV17138 Hearing Date: July 31, 2024 Dept: 27
Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
Hearing Date: 7/31/24
CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV17138 HASAWNI MARIE
MARTINEZ vs DAWN FOOD PRODUCTIONS, INC et al.
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Responding Party: Defendant Dawn Food Production
Notice: Sufficient
Ruling: MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED IN PART
Background
The present case
concerns a motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 31, 2023, near
Manchester Avenue and Broadway in Los Angeles. On or about April 15, 2024,
Defendant served a subpoena on Plaintiff’s insurance company, demanding
disclosure of information relating to Plaintiff and the subject incident. The
subpoena to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance requests all documents
pertaining to policy number 5468251F14-75A and/or Hasawni Marie Martinez from
January 23 to present. Plaintiff now moves the court to quash the subpoena.
Legal Standard
When a subpoena has
been issued requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of
documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court or
at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion “reasonably made” by the
party, the witness, or any consumer whose personal records are sought, or upon
the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be
heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or
directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court may
specify.¿
(See Code Civ. Proc. §
1987.1;¿Southern
Pac. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)¿
The court can make an order quashing or modifying a
subpoena as necessary to protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive
demands, including unreasonable violations of the right¿of
privacy of the person.”¿
(Code Civ. Proc., §
1987.1,¿subd.
(a).)
For discovery purposes,
information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the
case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.¿¿(Gonzalez
v. Superior Court¿(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th
1539, 1546.)¿¿Generally, all unprivileged
information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is
discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.¿¿(Code
Civ. Proc. §
2017.010;¿Schnabel v. Superior Court¿(1993)
5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)¿¿¿
Discussion
The right of privacy of
individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I,
§ 1.) In ruling on discovery motions, the Court must balance the privacy claims
of the responding party with the requesting party’s need for the information. (Schnabel
v. Superior Court¿(1993) 5 Cal.4th 704,
718-722.)¿
In determining whether
the privacy rights outweigh the need for the disclosure, the court employs a
balancing test.¿¿Constitutional rights
are only abridged where there is a compelling¿public
interest.¿¿(White v.¿Davis¿(1975)
13 Cal.3d 757, 775.)¿ “If the invasion of privacy is
serious, then the court must balance the privacy interest at stake against
other competing interests, which include the interest of the requesting party,
fairness to litigants in conducting the litigation, and the consequences of
granting or restricting access to the information.”¿¿(Snibbe¿v.
Superior Court¿(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th
184, 194.)¿¿The¿party
seeking disclosure must show that the information is directly relevant to the
lawsuit, essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, and the need for the
disclosure outweighs the privacy¿interests
that are involved.¿¿(Alch¿v.
Superior Court¿(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th¿1412,
1428.¿)
The court may also take into account whether less intrusive means exist to
obtain the information.¿¿(Life Technologies
Corp. v. Superior Court¿(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th¿640,
655-56.)¿¿¿
Plaintiff relies on
Insurance Code § 791.13, which provides, in part, that an insurance institution
shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual
collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the
disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response
to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search
warrant or subpoena. (Ins. Code, § 791.13(a), (h); see also Mead
Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 321 [discovery
of insurance claim files may be conditioned on obtaining the written consent of
the persons to whom the files relate].)
However, “[t]hat act is
part of this state’s regulation of the business of insurance. It was enacted
‘to establish standards for the collection, use and disclosure of information
gathered in connection with insurance transactions by insurance institutions,
agents or insurance-support organizations. . . The act applies to, and
restricts, information gathering practices and disclosures of information by
insurers. It does not purport to create a privilege against discovery by an
insured party who is a party to a lawsuit. Moreover, the provisions of the
insurance act yield where disclosure is ‘otherwise permitted or required by
law’ or is ‘in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order,
including a search warrant or subpoena.’ (Ins. Code, § 791.13(g), (h).)” (Irvington-Moore,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 733, 741.)
Therefore, the
discoverability of information contained in Plaintiff’s insurance files is
subject to the same balancing of privacy rights versus broad discovery
rights.
Defendant filed an
opposition stating that in filing the lawsuit, Defendant has alleged damages to
various body parts and to her property. In response to form interrogatories,
Plaintiff alleges that she suffered the following injuries: (a) Cervicalgia; (b)
Headaches and related problems; (c) Lumbar radiculitis; (d) Lumbar strain; (e)
Lumbar facet syndrome; (f) Cervical radiculitis; (g) Cervical strain; (h)
Cervical facet syndrome; (i) Lumbago; (j) 2.7mm disc protrusion indenting the
thecal sac at C5-6; (k) 2.5mm disc protrusion at L4-5 with bilateral canal
stenosis; (l) Loss of intervertebral disc height and signal at L4-5 and L5-S1
consistent with disc desiccation and spondylotic change; (m) Thoracic strain;
(n) Reversal of the normal cervical lordotic curve with apex at C5-6; (o) Facet
arthrosis and asymmetry at L4-5 and L5-S1; (p) Decreased lumbar lordosis.
Plaintiff also claims damages to her vehicle, a Nissan Altima.
In balancing
Plaintiff’s right to privacy against Defendant’s discovery rights, the court
will allow disclosure of Plaintiff’s insurance file relating to the subject
incident only. Any disclosure of medical information will be limited to those
alleged by Plaintiff. Information protected by attorney-client privilege will
also be limited, but a privilege log will be required for those pieces of
information that are withheld.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
If a party intends to submit on
this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT”
followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and
time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this
tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or
in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing
to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor
appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the
tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a
tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.