Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV28174, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28174    Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

              Plaintiff Ana Hernandez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Alonzo Forrest Lovings and Lyft Inc. (collectively, Defendants) based on a motor vehicle collision which resulted in her husband, Decedent Hector Rivas (Decedent)’s death.

            Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena issued by Defendant Alonzo Forrest Lovings (Lovings) to Lopez Income Tax/Alex Lopez.  The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

1.     DISCOVERY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES

            “The purpose of the discovery rules is to enhance the truth-seeking function of the litigation process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise.  In other words, the discovery process is designed to make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.”  (Juarez v. Boy Scouts of Am., Inc. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 377, 389 [cleaned up].)  

Current discovery standards hold that, “any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”  (Board of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1011, 1039 (hereafter Board of Nursing).)  “To meet this [test], a party seeking to compel [the] production of records . . . must articulate specific facts justifying the discovery sought; it may not rely on mere generalities.”  (Ibid.; see Johnson v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 829, 837 [finding that a subpoena was “insufficient” to compel production because it was “based wholly on the [party’s] alleged information and belief without any statement of supporting facts”].)  However, “[e]ven if information is otherwise discoverable, it may be protected by a constitutional or statutory privilege[,] [including] the right to privacy . . . .”  (Board of Nursing, supra, 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 1039.) 

a.     RIGHT TO PRIVACY

            “The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right to privacy.  Protection of informational privacy is the provision's central concern.  .  .  .  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.^[1]  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 v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (hereafter Williams) [cleaned up].)

            “Legally recognized privacy interests [include] interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’) .  .  .  .”  (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)  “A particular class of information is [sensitive or confidential] when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity.”  (Ibid.) 

                                                  i.          Tax Records

Information that is an integral part of tax returns, or contained in tax returns, qualifies for the tax privilege, including documents that are required to be attached to income tax returns.  (Brown v. Superior Court (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 142-144 [finding plaintiff’s W-2 tax forms were subject to privilege protecting taxpayer information from disclosure despite defendants’ claim they were relevant to lost wages].)  

2.     MOTION TO QUASH - SUBPONENAS

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a); City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 883, 888 [“In general, the procedural remedy against a defective subpoena duces tecum that calls for privileged matter is a motion to quash, vacate, recall, or modify the subpoena”].)  Here, Plaintiff moves to quash the subject subpoena which seeks the following:

“ALL DOCUMENTS AND INCOME TAX RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PERSON NAMED BELOW [Hector Antonio Rivas], FROM 2013 TO THE PRESENT.”  (Subpoena to Lopez Income Tax.)

(See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement; see also Declaration of Cinela Aziz, ¶ 4; Exhibit 1.)

            Plaintiff contends Lovings’ subpoena violates Plaintiff’s and Decedent’s right to privacy in their tax returns by seeking all documents and income tax records pertaining to Decedent from 2013 to the present. 

            Yet, “[i]t is well settled that the right of privacy is purely a personal one; it cannot be asserted by anyone other than the person whose privacy has been invaded, that is, plaintiff must plead and prove that his privacy has been invaded. Further, the right does not survive but dies with the person.”  (Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 683 [cleaned up].)   Consequently, the Court finds that whatever right to privacy Decedent had regarding his tax returns terminated upon his death. 

Turning to Plaintiff’s privacy interests in the subject tax returns, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed proffer sufficient, competent evidence, i.e., declaration or affidavit, to establish that she has a “legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.” 

On the other hand, the Court further notes that Lovings has failed to file an opposition.  A such, Lovings has not raised “legitimate and important countervailing interests” in the disclosure of the tax returns to overcome whatever privacy interests Plaintiff may have in them. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subject subpoena outright.  Plaintiff shall give notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.