Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV23640, Date: 2024-08-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23640 Hearing Date: August 20, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV23640
On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff Leonard Gennady Shmuliver (“Shmuliver”) filed an action against Defendants Katie Ann Stone (“Stone”), Jules Rothenberg (“Jules Rothenberg”), Sitanshu Shyam Singh (“Singh”), PV Holding Corp. (“PV Holding”), and Does 1-50 for negligence, negligence per se, statutory liability, and negligent entrustment. (Case number 22STCV23640.)
On September 19, 2022, PV Holding filed an answer. On September 20, 2022, PV Holding filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Stone, Jules Rothenberg, and Moes 1-100 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault, and declaratory relief. On April 21, 2023, Stone and Jules Rothenberg filed an answer to PV Holdings’s cross-complaint.
On September 22, 2022, Stone and Jules Rothenberg filed an answer to Shmuliver’s complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Singh, PV Holding, and Roes 1-15 for indemnity, declaratory relief, and contribution.
On November 8, 2023, Singh filed an answer to Shmuliver’s complaint.
B. Case number 22STCV24471
On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Benjamin Rothenberg (“Benjamin Rothenberg”) filed an action against Defendants Singh, PV Holding Corp, Uber, Stone, and Does 1-25 for negligence. (Case number 22STCV24471.)
On November 3, 2023, Stone filed an answer to Benjamin Rothenberg’s complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Singh, PV Holding, Uber, and Roes 1-10 for apportionment of negligence, indemnity, and declaratory relief. On July 18, 2024, PV Holding and Singh filed an answer to Stone’ cross-complaint.
On July 8, 2024, PV Holding and Singh filed an answer to Benjamin Rothenberg’s complaint.
C. Case number 22STCV24556
On July 29, 2022, Plaintiff Skylar Holmes (“Holmes”) filed an action against Defendants Singh, PV Holding Corp., and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle tort. (Case number 22STCV24556.)
On August 1, 2022, Holmes filed a first amended complaint adding a claim for general negligence.
On September 29, 2022, Holmes amended the first amended complaint to include Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) as Doe 1 and Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”) as Doe 2.
On October 19, 2022, PV Holding filed an answer to Holmes’s first amended complaint. On October 20, 2022, PV Holding filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Stone and Moes 1-100 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault, and declaratory relief. On November 14, 2023, Stone filed an answer to PV Holdings’ cross-complaint.
On October 10, 2023, Singh filed an answer to Holmes’s first amended complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Stone and Moes 1-100 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault, and declaratory relief. On November 3, 2023, Stone filed an answer to Singh’s cross-complaint.
On May 24, 2024, Uber and Rasier filed an answer to Holmes’s complaint.
D. Case number 22STCV31765
On September 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Stone and Skyler Esquivel (“Esquivel”) filed an action against Defendants Singh, Uber, Rasier, PV Holding, and Does 1-50 for negligence and unfair/unlawful/fraudulent business practices (Civil Code section 17200). (Case number 22STCV31765.)
On August 30, 2023, the Court (1) sustained Uber’s and Rasier’s demurrer to the claim for unfair/unlawful/fraudulent business practices (Civil Code section 17200) without leave to amend, (2) granted Uber’s and Rasier’s motion to strike the punitive damages claim without leave to amend, and (3) granted Uber’s and Rasier’s motion to strike the claim for attorney’s fees without leave to amend.
On October 26 2023, the Court granted in part Singh’s motion to strike portions of the complaint without leave to amend.
On October 27, 2023, the Court (1) sustained PV Holding’s demurrer to the claim for unfair/unlawful/fraudulent business practices (Civil Code section 17200) without leave to amend and (2) granted PV Holding’s motion to strike the punitive damage claim without leave to amend.
E. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On July 3, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV23640, 22STCV24471, and 22STCV24556 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 22STCV23640 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 31 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On July 31, 2023, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV23640 and 22STCV31765 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). 22STCV23640 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 31 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On November 14, 2023, the Court ordered case numbers 22STCV23640, 22STCV24471, 22STCV24556, and 22STCV31765 consolidated for all purposes. The Court designated case number 22STCV23640 as the lead case.
F. This motion
On May 7, 2024, Singh filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena issued to Kinto Transportation (“Kinto”) for production of business records and for sanctions. The motion was set for hearing on July 10, 2024. On June 25, 2024, Stone and Esquivel filed an opposition. On July 1, 2024, Singh filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to August 20, 2024.
Trial is currently set for May 19, 2025.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Singh asks the Court (1) to quash the deposition subpoena for business records which Stone and Esquivel served on Kinto and (2) to impose sanctions on Stone and Esquivel.
Stone and Esquivel ask the Court to deny the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides:
"(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 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 or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.
"(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person’s exercise of free speech rights."
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3, subdivision (g), provides in part:
“(g) Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3, subd. (g).)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides:
“(a) Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, 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.)
“ ‘[W]hile the filing of a lawsuit may implicitly bring about a partial waiver of one’s constitutional right of associational privacy, the scope of such “waiver” must be narrowly rather than expansively construed, so that plaintiffs will not be unduly deterred from instituting lawsuits by the fear of exposure of their private associational affiliations and activities.’ [Citation.] Therefore, . . . an implicit waiver of a party’s constitutional rights encompasses only discovery directly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842; see ibid. [“On occasion [a party's] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] opponent's right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery”].)
“Even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. [Citation.] The scope of any disclosure must be narrowly circumscribed, drawn with narrow specificity, and must proceed by the least intrusive manner. [Citation.]” (Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014.)
DISCUSSION
A. The complaint filed by Stone and Esquivel
The complaint alleges the following:
On August 2, 2020, vehicles driven by Stone and Singh collided as a result of Singh’s negligence, injuring Stone and her passenger Esquivel. Singh’s rental vehicle was obliterated in the collision.
On information and belief, Uber and Rasier (“the Uber Defendants”) had a partnership agreement with PV Holding’s subsidiary, Avis, in which PV Holding, acting through its subsidiary Avis, would rent vehicles to approved Uber drivers for purposes of driving within the course and scope of their employment with the Uber Defendants (the “Avis-Uber partnership agreement”). Approved Uber drivers who rented vehicles through this Avis-Uber partnership agreement were covered under Uber’s commercial auto insurance policy only when signed onto the Uber app, but not while otherwise driving the rental vehicle.
On information and belief, Singh was an approved driver for the Uber Defendants who rented a vehicle through the Avis-Uber partnership agreement. Singh did not carry personal auto insurance and was therefore only covered by Uber’s commercial auto insurance policy when he was signed onto the Uber app. When Defendant Singh was not signed into the Uber app but otherwise driving his Avis rental vehicle, Defendant Singh was not covered by Uber’s commercial auto policy and had no auto policy of his own to cover for any potential losses.
On information and belief, when the accident occurred, Singh did not have his Uber app turned on and was therefore not covered by Uber’s auto insurance policy.
On information and belief, Singh had a history of at-fault auto collisions and traffic citations, making him unfit for work as an Uber driver.
B. The subpoena for business records
On April 8, 2024, Stone and Esquivel served a deposition subpoena on Kinto asking for:
Any and all documents relating to the rental of any vehicle to Sitanshu Shyam Singh, DOB 12/24/1989, at any time, through the KINTO-Uber partnership, including but not limited to, Sitanshu Shyam Singh’s KINTO application, background check, rental contracts, rental history, payment method, receipts, invoices, reservation data, messages, insurance information for rentals, collision information, including police reports, insurance claims, and photographs, and all documents provided by Sitanshu Shyam Singh as part of his application to rent a vehicle through KINTO, such as drivers license, insurance information, and/or documents from Uber approving him for the rental program.” (Caponegri Dec., exh. C.)
C. Singh’s motion to quash
Singh asks the Court to quash the deposition subpoena, arguing the subpoena seeks records of events that took place after the accident, which are irrelevant. Singh also argues the subpoena violates his privacy rights and is overbroad.
D. Stone’s and Esquivel’s opposition
Stone and Esquivel argue that, “even after Mr. Singh drove his car at 81 mph around a blind curve and crashed into Plaintiff Katie Stone’s car—leaving all 5 teenage passengers with severe injuries—Uber continued its practice of disregarding Mr. Singh’s dangerous driving patterns and subsequently allowed him to rent another vehicle through their partnership with Kinto Transportation, the records of which are the subject of Plaintiff’s subpoena at issue here.” (Opposition p. 4.) According to Stone and Esquivel, the subpoenaed records are relevant to show that “Uber negligently entrusted Defendant Singh with a vehicle who caused a disastrous collision that has forever changed the life of Plaintiff Skyler Esquivel, and all the occupants of Katie Stone’s vehicle.” (Opposition p. 5; see Opposition p. 8 [subpoena is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence that “Uber continued to not only allow Mr. Singh to drive for Uber, but entrusted him with rental vehicles through their partnership programs, supporting Plaintiff’s claim that Uber either had a faulty system (or no system at all) to vet the safety of their drivers”].)
Stone and Esquivel also argue the subpoenaed records are relevant to refute Uber’s declaration that Singh has not driven for Uber since the accident. (See Opposition p. 8 [subpoena is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence that “Uber did, in fact, continue to rent vehicles to Mr. Singh after the date in which Uber declared Mr. Singh had stopped driving for Uber, impeaching their Data Science Manager’s declaration, and demonstrating Uber’s potential willful withholding of evidence and information”].)
In addition, Stone and Esquivel (1) argue the subpoena is not overly broad because it “seeks records that likely only date back to 2021” (Opposition p. 12) and (2) dispute Singh’s assertion that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the subpoenaed records.
Stone and Esquivel concede that documents pertaining to “payment method, receipts, [and] invoices” are protected financial records and agree that the Court may modify the subpoena to eliminate those requests. (Opposition p. 15.)
E. Singh’s reply
In reply, Singh argues that Stone and Esquivel can obtain the information they seek through less intrusive means.
F. Analysis
The Court has considered the parties’ arguments and weighed Singh’s privacy rights against the right of Stone and Esquivel to seek discoverable information. The Court grants the motion in part and (1) modifies the deposition subpoena to eliminate the requests for “payment method, receipts, [and] invoices,” (2) limits the deposition subpoena to cover only records created between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, and (3) orders the deponent to produce otherwise covered documents or other materials, regardless of date, that are attached to or incorporated within the covered records. In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
The Court denies Singh’s request for sanctions.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS in part Defendant Sitanshu Shyam Singh’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records issued by Plaintiffs Katie Ann Stone and Skyler Esquivel as follows:
· The Court modifies the deposition subpoena to eliminate the requests for “payment method, receipts, [and] invoices”;
· The Court limits the deposition subpoena to cover only records created between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021; and
· The Court orders deponent Kinto Transportation to produce otherwise covered documents or other materials, regardless of date, that are attached to or incorporated within the covered records.
In all other respects, the Court DENIES the motion.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.