Judge Lynne M. Hobbs, Case Number: 22STCV19488, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV19488, Date: 2024-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19488 Hearing Date: March 25, 2024 Dept: 30

GILBERT GUERRERO vs FRANKLIN VLADIMIR LOPEZ ALAS, et al.

TENTATIVE

Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is denied as to items 1-4, but granted as to item 5. Defendant Turo is ordered to provide responsive documents to item 5 within 20 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED. Moving party 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.)

The court can compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena on such terms and conditions as appropriate to protect parties or witnesses 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

On or about October 17, 2023, Plaintiff issued and served a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Defendant Turo, then a nonparty. (Kashani Decl., Exh. B.) The Subpoena sought the production of five categories of documents from Defendant:

1. Any and all Documents (as defined by Evidence Code § 250) you have relating to Plaintiff Gilbert Guerrero regarding the incident.

2. Any and all documents relating to Defendant Franklin Vladimir Lopez Alas, including, but not limited to all ESI relating to his profile, his driving records, applications, emails, application notifications, insurance documentation, payments made and or received, investigative reports, and any online application submissions.

3. Any and all documents relating to Defendant Ofer Saha, including, but not limited to all ESI relating to his profile, his driving record, applications, emails, application notifications, insurance documentation, payments made and or received, investigative reports, and any online application submissions.

4. Any and all Documents relating to the 2014 BMW bearing CA license plate no. 8MPX600.

5. All Documents relating to Turo, Inc’s insurance policies active on the date of the Incident that cover the incident.

(Id.)

Defendant served its objections and responses, as well as the document production, to the Subpoena on December 1, 2023.

Pursuant to meet and confer efforts, Defendant provided supplemental responses, document production, and Privilege Log on December 22, 2023.

On December 29, 2023, Defendant served a revised Privilege Log and indicated that no other relevant, responsive documents were withheld on the basis of privilege. It was Defendant’s position that all relevant, responsive documents were produced by Defendant. The “sublinks” that Plaintiff’s counsel sought the production of are hyperlinks used by Defendant to access its internal systems and are outside the scope of the Subpoena.

Defendant then learned that on December 27, 2023, Plaintiff had filed an Amendment to the Complaint, naming Defendant as DOE 1.

On March 9, 2024, Defendant served on Plaintiff the same 70-page document production as served on December 1, 2023, but withdrew its privilege claim to any of the documents and produced them in unredacted form. (Opp., Exh. F.)

In reply, Plaintiff argues that Turo’s production in response to the subpoena was not code compliant. The documents were served in one grouping. The code requires they be separated. documents must be sorted and labeled to correspond with the categories in the document demand. (CCP § 2031.280(a).) Plaintiff also argues that Turo did not produce insurance records (item 5). Turo did not produce complete profiles of Defendant Franklin Vladimir Lopez Alas, and Defendant Ofer Saha, and they did not produce the sublinks.

First, CCP § 2031.280(a) states: Any documents or category of documents produced in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall be identified with the specific request number to which the documents respond. Here, the motion is to compel compliance with a deposition subpoena. Thus, the responses are not in response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling. Plaintiff has provided no authority that states CCP § 2031.280(a) applies in connection with this motion.

Next, Plaintiff states sublinks were not provided. It is unclear what that term means; Plaintiff has made no effort to explain what it means; Plaintiff’s subpoena neither requests “sublinks,” nor uses or defines that term. As such, the Court finds that “sublinks” are outside the scope of the subpoena.

Lastly, the Court has reviewed Turo’s responsive documents and finds that Turo has not responded to item 5, relating to insurance records. In opposition, Turo only states that it was Turo’s position that all relevant, responsive documents were produced. Turo does not state it does not have the documents pertaining to item 5. Further, the privilege objection was withdrawn. Lastly, none of Turo’s other objections have been mentioned in the opposition. The legal burden to justify refusing or failing to provide discovery lies with the objecting party. (Coy v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220.) As Turo has not met its legal burden to justify the objections and no documents have been provided, the Court grants the motion as to item 5.

As to the remaining documents, the Court finds that as Turo provided responses on March 9, 2024, the motion is moot as to items 1-4. While Plaintiff argues in reply that not all responsive documents have been provided, Plaintiff makes no effort to explain what documents are missing. Moreover, Plaintiff’s separate statement was filed prior to Turo’s document production, and thus, is not helpful. Moreover, it appears Plaintiff propounded document requests on Turo seeking these same documents. (Opp., Exh. G. Requests 53-57.) Thus, Plaintiff may move to compel further if he believes the responses are not moot.

Sanctions

Plaintiff seeks sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.480, subdivision (j), which provides that “[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessful makes or opposes a motion to compel . . . production,” unless there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

The Court denies the request for sanctions as the motion was not unsuccessfully opposed, rather the ruling is a mixed result. In any event, Defendant has provided substantial justification. Turo adequately explained that it thought the subpoena was moot after Turo was added as a party and after Plaintiff propounded the same requests in the request for production of documents. Further, Defendant has been cooperating with Plaintiff’s counsel and providing supplemental responses.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is denied as to items 1-4, but granted as to item 5. Defendant Turo is ordered to provide responsive documents to item 5 within 20 days. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.