Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 24SMCV00540, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV00540, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV00540 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: M

CASE NAME: Buckingham v. Yummy Foods LLC, et al.

CASE NO.: 24SMCV00540

MOTION: Motion to Quash Subpoenas

HEARING DATE: 11/22/2024

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states that “[i]f 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.” (CCP § 1987.1(a).) “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.” (Id.)

As a general rule, 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. (CCP § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) 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.)

Subpoenas which seek consumer records, including personal financial information, must adhere to additional procedural requirements laid out in CCP § 1985.3. The subpoena must first be served on the consumer at least five days before it is served on the nonparty from whom records are sought (with a five-day extension if served by mail, pursuant to CCP § 1013). (CCP, § 1985.3(b)(3).) A subpoena must be served on the custodian of records at least fifteen days before the date upon which records are to be produced, plus any statutory extensions. (Id., §§ 1985.3(d), 2020.410(c).)

Code of Civil Procedure section¿2025.410(c) requires that a motion to quash a deposition notice must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration.

Additionally, a motion to quash production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled. (CRC rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff Emily Buckingham moves to quash thirty-two subpoenas for production of records issued by Defendants Yummy Foods LLC and Keenan Pressley to sixteen medical providers and sixteen insurance companies. Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas improperly seek private records without any restriction as to time or scope as to body parts at issue in this litigation

A subpoena which seeks consumer records, including personal financial information, must adhere to the procedural requirements of section 1985.3. The subpoena must first be served on the consumer at least five days before it is served on the nonparty from whom records are sought (subject to extension by section 1013), on the consumer personally, or at his or her last known address, or in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 3, or to their attorney of record. (CCP § 1985.3(b)(1)-(3).) The record shows that the subpoenas and notices to consumer were served at the same time. Defendants’ subpoenas therefore failed to comply with the 5-day notice rule of section 1985.3(b). Thus, the subpoenas are procedurally improper and must be quashed.

Plaintiff has improperly combined 32 separate motions to quash. As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff is required to file separate motions as to each subpoena and pay a separate motion fee for each motion. (Gov. Code §70617.) The Court will condition granting the instant motions on payment of an additional $1,860.00 in filing fees to the Clerk. Those fees must be paid by November 25, 2024.

Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED. The order will become effective upon receipt of Plaintiff’s proof of payment of the additional filing fees.

The Court will also briefly address the substance of the subpoenas since this issue may arise again once proper service is effectuated. Here, the subpoenas are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of directly relevant evidence, which overcomes the claimed right of privacy here. 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. (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35-37.) If there is a serious invasion of a constitutional right to privacy, the party seeking the evidence must establish that the information sought is not only essential and directly relevant, but also that this information could not be discovered through less intrusive means. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) In considering a privacy objection, trial courts must carefully balance a right of privacy against the interest in having just litigation. (Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 371.); Allen v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 449; see, e.g., Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658 [“. . . the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and on the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure, and ability of the court to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure, disclosure in another form, or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances.”].) The burden is on the party seeking the constitutionally protected information to establish direct relevance. (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.)

The Court would only limit the subpoenas to a reasonable scope of time, but otherwise leave the subpoenas intact. Plaintiff past medical information, including injuries to any body parts within the past 10 years, are directly related to Plaintiff’s extensive personal injury claims. Defendants must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to examine the extent of any pre-existing damages. Hopefully, the Court’s tentative decision as to this issue will negate a need for any future motions to quash as to these subpoenas.