Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV23939, Date: 2023-12-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23939    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 30

JAIME ROBLES vs JONATHAN GILLE

TENTATIVE

Defendant Jonathan Gille’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED. 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 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

Defendant Gille moves to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena to his insurance carrier Allstate, on the grounds that records are protected under the right to privacy, and violate the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.

Plaintiff demanded that Defendant’s insurance carrier, Allstate, produce “[any and all insurance records, including but not limited to medical records, correspondence, payments, including but not limited to payment history, policy information, declarations page, and claims including but not limited to all other documents stored electronically or digitally, to include any other documents contained within any insurance file and or claim file, for DOL 08/11/20...” (Landeros DecI. ¶ 2).

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) The framework for evaluating invasions of privacy in discovery have been clarified in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. There, the California Supreme Court held that, generally, “[t]he 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. The party seeking 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.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 533, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) The court rejected the cases which held that the party seeking protected information must always show a compelling need or interest. (Id. at p. 557.) Instead, the court held, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Id.)

Here, Defendant has raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his insurance records and history under the given circumstances. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 557.) Plaintiff does not articulate any legitimate or important countervailing interest such disclosure would serve as he has not filed an opposition, and especially considering that there are no cross-claims against Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendant that the subpoena should be quashed.

As the subpoena is quashed, the remaining arguments need not be addressed.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED.