Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV29976, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV29976    Hearing Date: June 3, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV29976 Francisco Medina, et al v. Wayne Hon Lam, Lyft, Inc.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT, WAYNE HON LAM’S, SUBPOENA TO THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR RECORDS (Res. No. 8827)

                                                        I.          BACKGROUND

       The first amended complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are the heirs of Jose Luis Medina Palacios (“Decedent”), who was allegedly struck by Defendants. Decedent subsequently died from his injuries.  Plaintiff alleges claims for negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent hiring/retention/training/supervision/retention, wrongful death, and survival claims on behalf of Decedent’s estate.      

                                                         II.         ARGUMENTS

A.      Motion filed May 1, 2025

       Plaintiffs argue that Defendant issued five subpoenas for records concerning Decedent from Los Angeles General Medical Center, Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), and the Los Angeles County Department of Medical Examiner. Plaintiffs argue the subpoenas are overbroad and violate decedent’s right of privacy.

       Defense counsel, Matt Cordi, offered to place the medical subpoenas on hold until Plaintiff responded to written discovery, to which Plaintiff’s counsel, Stephanie Prebay, agreed.

       Plaintiffs contend that the LAPD subpoena should be limited to documents concerning the incident at issue. Decedent has the right of privacy in traffic collision records, which are not relevant to the lawsuit.

B.      Opposition filed May 20, 2025.

       Defendant argues that the motion is procedurally defective because Plaintiffs were required to make a separate motion for each subpoena.  Defendant is entitled to ascertain the decedent’s pre-accident condition. Plaintiffs did not articulate anything in the records relating to Decedent that is subject to privacy.

C.      Reply filed May 27, 2025

       Plaintiffs assert that the parties subsequently agreed to limit LAPD records to documents involving the incident. However, Defendants were able to obtain records beyond the scope of the limitation. Plaintiffs ask that the court acknowledge the agreement to limit the subpoenaed records; confirm that any document produced beyond the agreed scope were improperly disclosed, issue a protective order precluding the use of such records in these proceedings, and retain the motion on calendar to enforce the parties’ agreement.

                                                         III.        DISCUSSION

       The court can quash a subpoena to protect a party from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. The court has discretion to modify the subpoena, or direct compliance upon terms or conditions as the court declares, including issuing protective orders. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

       The party claiming a privacy interest bears the burden of proof on the issue.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 531. [“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.”].)

       Although Defendant issued five subpoenas, Plaintiffs’ separate statement clarifies that the only subpoena at issue is the one served on Los Angeles Police Department, Discovery Section. (SS, 3:3-10.) The parties agreed to place the remaining four medical subpoenas on hold until Plaintiffs served discovery responses. (Mot. Ex. 4.)

       The LAPD subpoena requested “any and all” accident reports and related documents and video concerning Decedent. (Mot.  .pdf 41).        Following the filing of the motion to quash, the parties agreed to limit the LAPD subpoena solely to the incident at issue. (Reply, Ex. 9, Mot. Ex. 4.)  However, the deposition officer, Compex Legal Services, produced documents beyond the scope of the limitation.

       Plaintiff’s reply brief asks that the court quash the LAPD subpoena and asks for additional relief: (1) for the court to acknowledge the parties’ agreement to limit the scope of the LAPD subpoena, (2) confirm that any document produced beyond the agreed scope were improperly disclosed, (3) issue a protective order precluding the use of such records, and (4) retain the motion on calendar to enforce the parties’ agreement. (Reply, 2:18-23.)

       An order to quash the LAPD subpoena appears superfluous as the parties agreed to the limitation, and records have been produced. Whether the court can retroactively quash a subpoena that has been served, and with which the deposition officer complied, is beyond the issues articulated in Plaintiffs’ motion. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ request for additional relief raised in Plaintiffs’ reply brief (Nos. 1-3.) is beyond the scope of issues articulated in the moving papers and should be separately raised by motion to permit Defendant the opportunity to challenge the requested relief.

                                                 IV.        CONCLUSION