Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 20STCV20821, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV20821    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: 30

DAVID CASTRO, et al. vs ROBERT ANDREW KEDROSKI, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to quash and protective order is DENIED without prejudice to raising this issue to the trial court judge. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

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.)¿

There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet-and-confer declaration demonstrating a good-faith attempt at informal resolution. (See id.)

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).)

Under Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, 35-37, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Id.) The party seeking the information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Id. at 37–40.)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s trial subpoena seeking documents and testimony from psychologist, Lisa Meneshian, Ph.D., and for a protective order preventing the deposition and admission of Dr. Meneshian’s records and Plaintiff’s mental health issues at trial. There is also a motion in limine by Plaintiff to exclude evidence of his mental health.

The factual basis for this motion is that Plaintiff’s mental health is not at issue in this litigation and therefore, Plaintiff has not waived his constitutional privacy rights to maintain the privacy of his mental health issue.

The court finds that any ruling excluding evidence at trial must be addressed by the trial court. It appears Plaintiff already has a pending motion in limine, and thus, any rulings on this issue are reserved for the trial court judge.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash and protective order is DENIED without prejudice to raising this issue to the trial court judge.