Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case 22STCV01351 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01351, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Nonparty TikTok, Inc., or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendants Tiffany Smith, Hunter Hill, and Piper Rockelle, Inc.

Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Sawyer S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E.

SUBJECT: Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Nonparty Instagram, Inc., or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendants Tiffany Smith, Hunter Hill, and Piper Rockelle, Inc.

Resp. Party: Plaintiffs Sawyer S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E.

Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED in part. Defendants’ Motions are denied as to quashing the subpoenas but the scope of the documents to be subpoenaed shall be limited to documents and information used for the opening of the respective “piperrockelle” accounts.

Plaintiffs attached sensitive documents about a minor child as exhibits in this matter without labelling them as confidential. The minor child is not even a party to this proceeding. Nonetheless, these exhibits are now part of the public record.

There is no motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Court believes that the propriety of this disclosure is not necessary for a resolution of the issues presented by these two motions. Given that the privacy and safety of a minor child are important concerns, the Parties are strongly encouraged to resolve these issues in the future prior to any possible objectionable public court filings.

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Sawyer S., Donlad D., Ayden M., Connor C., Hayden H., Walker B., Sophia F., Corinne D., Symonne H., Claire E., and Reese E. filed a Complaint against Defendants Tiffany Smith, Hunter Hill, and Piper Rockelle, Inc. The underlying allegations involve the mistreatment and abuse of Plaintiffs, all of whom are minors, in the production of Defendants’ YouTube channel. The listed causes of action are:

On August 2, 2022, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, the Court issued a Protective Order.

On August 3, 2022, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, the Court issued an order for production of records by Google, Inc. pursuant to subpoena.

On October 25, 2022, pursuant to stipulation of the Parties, Defendants agreed to take their previously-pending motions off calendar.

On November 30, 2022, Defendants filed: (1) Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Nonparty TikTok, Inc., or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order; and (2) Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Nonparty Instagram, Inc., or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order. Defendants concurrently filed the following with each of the Motions: (1) Declaration of Karol Ingber; (2) Separate Statement; and (3) Proposed Order.

On December 30, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their Combined Opposition (“Opposition”). Plaintiffs concurrently filed Declaration of Matthew S. Sarelson.

On January 6, 2023, Defendants filed their Reply. Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Tiffany Smith; (2) Declaration of Kenneth Ingber; (3) Evidentiary Objections to Declaration of Matthew Sarelson; and (4) Proposed Order on Evidentiary Objections.

Defendants filed Evidentiary Objections against the Declaration of Matthew Sarelson. The following are the Court’s rulings on the Evidentiary Objections.

Objection
1		OVERRULED
2		OVERRULED
3		OVERRULED
4		OVERRULED
5		OVERRULED
6		OVERRULED
7		OVERRULED
8		OVERRULED
9		OVERRULED

“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.”

“(a) Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order. The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040.

“(b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”

Courts have considerable discretion in granting and crafting protective orders. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 584, 588.)

Both of the Motions at hand are identical, except that one regards Nonparty TikTok, Inc. and the other regards Nonparty Instagram, Inc. The Motions even contain identical citations. The analysis below applies equally to both Motions.

The sole request for production of documents included in the Deposition Subpoena to Nonparties TikTok, Inc. and Instagram, Inc. is the following:

“1. All Documents for the account known as ‘piperrockelle’ and all other accounts that are controlled or used by either Piper Rockelle or Tiffany Rockelle Smith including but not limited to TikTok account initiation such as account application and identification documents.”

Defendants move the Court to quash the Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records on Nonparties TikTok, Inc. and Instagram, Inc., or in the alternative to issue a protective order. (Motions, p. 5:19–22.) Defendants argue: (1) that the subpoena is overly broad and not likely to lead to relevant or admissible evidence; and (2) that the subpoena violates the right to privacy of Defendant Tiffany Smith and her minor daughter, who is a nonparty. (Motion, pp. 3:12–13, 4:16–17.)

Plaintiffs oppose the Motions, arguing: (1) that Plaintiffs’ subpoenas are reasonable in scope and likely to lead to relevant or admissible evidence; (2) that Plaintiffs’ subpoenas do not violate the right to privacy of Defendant Smith and her minor daughter; (3) that Defendants have not shown good cause for a protective order; and (4) that Defendants Motions include ancillary accusations that have been made in bad faith. (Opposition, pp. 4:13–14, 5:10–11, 6:6, 6:11–13.)

Defendants reiterate their arguments in their Reply, as well as arguing that Plaintiffs improperly published unredacted, confidential documents regarding Defendant Smith’s minor child, which are subject to a protective order, without Defendants’ consent. (Reply, 6:23–25.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that, as submitted, the document requests in the subpoenas are overbroad. While there does not appear to be any doubt that the documents requested could have some relevance to the matter at hand given that some of the causes action include unjust enrichment, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of the unfair competition law, Plaintiffs have not stated sufficient reasons why every single document involved with these accounts should be produced by these Nonparties.

However, the Court also notes that Plaintiffs have significantly narrowed the scope of what they are seeking. Specifically, Plaintiffs now “seek to obtain account opening and similar information and documents from both Instagram and TikTok.” (Opposition, p. 4:7–8.) The reason for this is to obtain information from these companies regarding whether a fabricated passport or other documentation was used to create these accounts. (Id. at p. 4:5–7.) Plaintiffs explicitly “do not object to an order or stipulation that removes account activity (views, subscribers, etc.) and financial affairs from the scope of the subpoena[s].” (Id. at p. 7:6–7.)

Considering that one of the causes of action is for violation of the unfair competition law, it is entirely appropriate as a matter of discovery for Plaintiffs to request documents from third parties that could prove underlying violations of law that might support this cause of action. Moreover, the scope of the request as outlined in the Motions is now sufficiently narrow.

Prior to ruling on the matter, the Court considers Defendants’ privacy concerns.

Defendants make an interesting point about the privacy concerns regarding these accounts, which on their face appear to involve a nonparty who is also a minor child. Yet given the repeated assertions by both sides in this matter, the Court is aware that it is unlikely that these are actually personal accounts for the minor child. Rather, it appears more likely than not that these are business accounts that are primarily used and controlled by Defendants.

Regardless of the purpose or control of the accounts, the Court recognizes that privacy concerns may still be at play because there is significant chance that the documents requested could include the minor child’s passports or other personal information about the minor child.

“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.)

Here, the underlying personal information that Plaintiffs request has already been revealed to them through prior discovery. The issue at hand is whether allegedly fraudulent passports and/or other documents with the personal information were submitted to Nonparties TikTok, Inc. and Instagram, Inc., which if so might tend to support elements of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Given the situation and the information requested, the appropriate test at hand is the Hill test, and the Court finds upon balancing the competing interests that this narrow discovery should be allowed.

Counsel are to meet-and-confer to agree upon the wording of revised subpoenas to TikTok and Instagram that conform to the Court’s ruling.