Judge Mark A. Young, Case Number: 24SMCV03109, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV03109, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV03109 Hearing Date: February 24, 2025 Dept: M

CASE NO.: 24SMCV03109

MOTION: Motion to Quash Subpoena

HEARING DATE: 2/24/2025

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).)

CCP 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

Non-Party Chantal Scott moves the Court for an order quashing the subpoena issued by Plaintiffs to Google LLC, Custodian of Records, at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. Scott argues that the subpoena should be quashed because Plaintiffs fail to provide requisite notice to the Consumer and failing to attach a copy the subpoena, in violation of CCP sections 1985.3 and 1987.1.

Scott fails to demonstrate that the subpoena seeks records from a “witness” as defined by section 1985.3(a)(1). This section provides that a witness is:

a physician, dentist, ophthalmologist, optometrist, chiropractor, physical therapist, acupuncturist, podiatrist, veterinarian, veterinary hospital, veterinary clinic, pharmacist, pharmacy, hospital, medical center, clinic, radiology or MRI center, clinical or diagnostic laboratory, state or national bank, state or federal association (as defined in Section 5102 of the Financial Code), state or federal credit union, trust company, anyone authorized by this state to make or arrange loans that are secured by real property, security brokerage firm, insurance company, title insurance company, underwritten title company, escrow agent licensed pursuant to Division 6 (commencing with Section 17000) of the Financial Code or exempt from licensure pursuant to Section 17006 of the Financial Code, attorney, accountant, institution of the Farm Credit System, as specified in Section 2002 of Title 12 of the United States Code, or telephone corporation which is a public utility, as defined in Section 216 of the Public Utilities Code, or psychotherapist, as defined in Section 1010 of the Evidence Code, or a private or public preschool, elementary school, secondary school, or postsecondary school as described in Section 76244 of the Education Code.

Google does not fall into any of these categories. Thus, no notice to consumers was required. Scott asserts that CCP section 1987.1 requires consumer notice at least 5 days prior to production date. However, this section does not require, explicitly or implicitly, a notice to consumers. The section simply provides authority for a consumer (and others) to move to quash.

In reply, Scott raises the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. § 2702. The SCA permits disclosure pursuant to a valid warrant or an equivalent court order. (18 U.S.C. § 2703.) A subpoena, like the subject SDT, is an equivalent court order. Therefore, the SCA would not bar production here.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is DENIED.