Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 22SMCV02308, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02308    Hearing Date: October 12, 2023    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Morales, v. Bellami Hair LLC

CASE NO.:                22SMCV02308

MOTION:                  Motion to Compel Third-Party Meta Platforms Inc. to Comply with Subpoena

HEARING DATE:   10/12/2023

Legal Standard

            Personal service of a deposition subpoena obligates the production of whatever documents or things are specified in the subpoena and to appear in any proceedings to enforce discovery. (CCP § 2020.220(c). If a nonparty disobeys a deposition subpoena, the subpoenaing party may seek a court order pursuant to CCP section 1987.1 compelling the nonparty to comply with the subpoena within 60 days after completion of the deposition record. (CCP § 2025.480(b); see also UnzippedApparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 127.)

The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (CCP § 2025.480(b).) There is no “good cause” requirement when seeking to compel documents from a nonparty. (CCP § 2020.410(c).)

Analysis

Plaintiff moves to compel a response to a subpoena sent to third party Meta Platforms Inc. Specifically, the subpoena sought the following electronically stored information:

Plaintiff asked for the following in its description of records for production: Copies of Bellami Hair LLC’s (handle “bellamihair”, “bellami”, etc.) paid and unpaid content, including all advertisements and marketing items, posted on Meta Platforms Inc.’s social media platforms, including Facebook, Facebook Market Place, Instagram, Instagram Stories, etc., including but not limited to contents which included Plaintiff Carla Morales’ subject two pictures (samples provided in Exhibit 1), from 2019 to present, including but not limited to documents and communications indicating how many times such items were posted/published, how many times such items were viewed, how much Bellami Hair LLC paid for the paid content, all orders by Bellami Hair LLC, all invoices to Bellami Hair LLC, items indicating the targeted demographic and geographic areas, etc., how many times such items were clicked on, how many times such items were converted into sales and for what gross amounts.

(Berokim Decl., Ex. 1.)

Meta objected to the subpoena asserting: i) Plaintiff must direct the request to the user (Defendant); ii) the subpoena is overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, or not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; iii) the information is protected attorney-client or other applicable privilege, or confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information; and iv) Meta cannot authenticate or verify account content.  (Id., Ex. 2.) On these objections, Meta refused to comply.

Meta opposes this motion on two grounds. First, Meta notes that they have objected to this discovery, and thus a separate statement is required under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.  Generally, a separate statement is required where there has been a response to the request for discovery. (CRC Rule 3.1345(b).) More specifically, any motion “involving the content of a discovery request . . . must be accompanied by a separate statement” including a motion to “compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition[.]” (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5).) Here, Plaintiff moves to compel the production of documents pursuant to their deposition subpoena for the production of business records. As noted, Meta objected to this SDT. Thus, a separate statement is required for this motion to compel.

Second, Meta argues that this motion may be denied under CCP section 1985.8(i). This section states in pertinent part:

(i) The court shall limit the frequency or extent of discovery of electronically stored information, even from a source that is reasonably accessible, if the court determines that any of the following conditions exists: (1) It is possible to obtain the information from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

Meta demonstrates that Plaintiff may readily obtain this same information from Defendants. Seeking the information directly from Defendants, rather than Meta, would be more convenient and less burdensome for the third party. Meta explained to Plaintiff’s counsel that a user may log into their accounts at any time to preserve, collect, produce, and authenticate their account contents, with various tools available to help users access and download their information, including Defendant’s sales and profits from its use of that single advertisement carousel. Thus, Defendant has equal access to the information, and would be in a better position to produce all relevant information sought by the subpoena. Defendant confirms that Plaintiff has sought the same information directly from Defendant. (Amlani Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. D.) Notably, Defendant’s responses to outstanding discovery were not due until October 6, 2023, after this subpoena issued.

            In light of the lack of a separate statement, and the ability to acquire this same information from Defendants, the motion is DENIED.