Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCV01383, Date: 2025-03-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CHCV01383 Hearing Date: March 20, 2025 Dept: F47
Dept. F47
Date: 3/20/25
TRIAL DATE: 7/6/26
Case #24CHCV01383
MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA FOR INSURANCE RECORDS
Motion filed on 11/4/24.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Galvin Ortega
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Ivan
Gonzalez-Chavez and T.M.K. Fasteners Limited Liability Company
RULING:
This action arises out of an automobile collision that
occurred on 3/14/23 in Chatsworth, California involving Plaintiff Galvin Ortega
(Plaintiff) and Defendants Ivan Gonzalez-Chavez and T.M.K. Fasteners Limited
Liability Company (collectively, Defendants).
On 8/26/24, Defendants issued a subpoena to Allstate
Insurance Company (Allstate) seeking “any and all records” concerning
Plaintiff. (Zurita-Cruz Decl., Ex.2). On 9/9/24, Plaintiff served objections to
Defendants’ subpoena along with a meet and confer letter. (Id., Ex.3, 4). In response, on 9/18/24, Defendants’ counsel
sent correspondence agreeing to limit the subpoena as follows:
“Documents to be produced are
limited to records from 03/14/2013-Present; and limited to documents relating to complaints of, or the
care and treatment of the following conditions/body parts:
Neck; low back; Acute cervical
spine sprain and strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury; cervical/lumbar
disc herniation; post traumatic neck and low back pain; myofascial pain.”
(Zurita-Cruz Decl., Ex.5).
Plaintiff agreed to the limitation and Defendants
withdrew the original subpoena. (Id.,
Ex.6). On 9/20/24, Defendants issued an
amended subpoena to Allstate seeking Plaintiff's automobile insurance records
seeking the Custodian of Records to disclose “any and all” records concerning
Plaintiff on the production date of 10/21/24.
(Id., Ex.7). The amended subpoena
had two different subpoena descriptions: (1) the original subpoena language
that Plaintiff objected to; and (2) a different variation of the language that
Defendants’ counsel proposed for the amended subpoena language. (Id., Ex.7).
On 10/9/24, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email regarding
the amended subpoena’s objectionable and confusing language. (Id., Ex.8). Defense counsel agreed to withdraw the
amended subpoena and would reissue it without the “any and all” language. Id.
On 10/10/24, Defendants issued a second amended subpoena to Allstate with
the following language:
“The records to be produced are
described as follows:
Special Instructions:
Ref: Policy Number: 967-734-328. Insurance records from 03/14/2013 to present
only pertaining to the individual named herein, including medical records,
medical bills, declaration pages, correspondence, premium payments, previous
and existing claims files, discovery responses, arbitration awards, policy
coverage and limit information, applications, color copies of photographs,
video tapes, reports and any other documents contained within the insurance
company files and limited to documents relating to complaints of, or the care
and treatment of the following conditions/body parts only: neck; low back;
acute cervical spine sprain and strain with musculoligamentous stretch injury;
cervical/lumbar disc herniation; post traumatic neck and low back pain; and myofascial
pain.”
(Zurita-Cruz Decl., Ex.9).
On 10/29/24, served a meet and confer letter and
objections to the second amended subpoena demanding that it be withdrawn. (Id., Ex.10, 11). Defense counsel’s paralegal contended that
the language in the second amended subpoena complied with the parties’
agreement. (Id., Ex.12). Plaintiff’s counsel disagreed and informed
defense counsel that a motion to quash would be filed and sanctions would be
sought if the subpoena was not withdrawn by 11/1/24. Id.
Again, defense counsel claimed that the language in the second amended
subpoena had been agreed upon and the subpoena was not withdrawn. Id.
On 11/4/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion
seeking an order quashing Defendants’ deposition subpoena for production of
Plaintiff’s automobile insurance records from Allstate. Additionally, Plaintiff
requests sanctions against Defendants and/or their attorneys of record Hosp,
Gilbert & Bergsten in the amount of $3,500.00. No opposition or other response to the motion
has been filed by Defendants.
The proof of service attached to the motion indicates
that it was served on defense counsel by U.S. mail and email. However, the attorney of record for
Defendants, Robert Bergsten, and Robert Bergsten’s email address are not listed
in the proof of service. (See
Motion, pp.18-19). As noted above, there
is no response to the motion by Defendants to cure the defect in notice.
If defense counsel appears at the hearing and concedes
receipt of the motion, the matter will be taken under submission.
If not, the hearing on the motion will be continued so
that the motion can be re-served on Defendants’ counsel of record. In the event that the hearing on the motion
is continued, any opposition to the motion will be due to be filed and served
at least 9 court days before the continued hearing date and any reply is
ordered to be filed and served at least 5 court days before the continued
hearing date.