Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 19STCV03462, Date: 2022-12-05 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 19STCV03462    Hearing Date: December 5, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the Department of Motor Vehicles

Moving Party:  Defendants Jake Morris Dante, Cynthia Pett Dante, and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, LLC 

Resp. Party:    Plaintiff Benjamin Nichols

Defendant Jake Morris Dante’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENT:

        The Court’s denial of this motion to quash does not preclude the parties from entering into an appropriate protective order that would preclude the dissemination of the information discovered.

BACKGROUND:

On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Complaint against Defendants Jake Morris Dante, Cynthia Pett Dante, and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, LLC to allege the following causes of action related to an automobile accident:

(1)       Negligence;

(2)       Violation of Vehicle Code Sections 20001 and 20003;

(3)       Violation of Vehicle Code Section 23152; and

(4)       Negligent entrustment of motor vehicle.

On July 2, 2019, Defendants filed their Answer.

On July 19, 2022, the Court: (1) denied summary adjudication as to the first and fourth causes of action; (2) granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants as to the second and third causes of action; and (3) granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendants as to punitive damages in the first, second, and third causes of action.

        On October 6, 2022, Defendant Jake Morris Dante filed his Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

        On November 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed his Opposition. Plaintiff concurrently filed Declaration of Seri Kattan-Wright.

On November 22, 2022, Defendant filed his Reply.

ANALYSIS:

I.           Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) provides:

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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. 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) There is no requirement that the motion contain a meet and confer declaration. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) 

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

The California Constitution includes the inalienable right to privacy. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.)

“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. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternative 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. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)

The balancing test outlined in Hill applies whenever lesser privacy interests are at stake. (Id. at 556.) The Court only applies the higher “compelling interest” standard to justify “an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy.” (Id.)

II.        Discussion

On September 12, 2022, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena upon the California Department of Motor Vehicles seeking the following records:

“Any and all records pertaining to Jake Morris Dante, DOB 10/20/1997, Drivers License No. Y2973584.”

(Motion, p. 4:13–15; Motion, Ex. A, p. 2.)

        Defendant moves the Court to quash the Deposition Subpoena, arguing: (1) that the Deposition Subpoena seeks records that are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; (2) that evidence of automobile accidents have long been held inadmissible and irrelevant; (3) that the Deposition Subpoena is not narrowly tailored but is rather vague and ambiguous; (4) that the Deposition Subpoena invades Defendant’s right to privacy; and (5) that Plaintiff cannot show good cause as to why the documents should be produced.

        The Court does not agree with Defendant’s arguments.

First, the Court considers the issues of relevance, admissibility, and good cause. Defendant’s automobile records are clearly relevant in this matter, which regards an automobile accident. Moreover, the fourth cause of action for negligent entrustment of a motor vehicle requires the element of awareness, actual or constructive, that a person is unfit or incompetent to drive. (Diaz v. Carcamo (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1148, 1157.) Thus, discovery of Defendant Jake Morris Dante’s automobile records are reasonably calculated to lead the discovery of evidence of awareness, and such evidence would be admissible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) Good cause is not part of the standard for discovery.

Second, the Court considers Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena, which only requests Defendant Jake Morris Dante’s records. The Court finds that the Deposition Subpoena is sufficiently narrowly tailored, specific, and unambiguous.

Finally, the Court considers Defendant’s right to privacy. As automobile records do not implicate “an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy,” the Court applies the Hill test. (Williams, supra, at 556.) In this case, the Court finds that Defendant Jake Morris Dante has a legally protected privacy interest in his automobile records, that he has an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy as to his automobile records in the given circumstances, and that the threatened intrusion into his automobile records is serious. Plaintiff, the party seeking the information, has clearly explained why this information should be discovered. Defendant, the party seeking protection, has not identified any feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. After balancing the Parties’ competing considerations, the Court finds that Defendant’s right to privacy must give way to Plaintiff’s right to discovery.

        The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion. The Court shall not quash the Deposition Subpoena on the Department of Motor Vehicles.

III.     Conclusion

Defendant Jake Morris Dante’s Motion to Quash is DENIED.