Judge Michael Small, Case Number: 22STCV31904, Date: 2023-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Plaintiff Clean Initiative, LLC ("Clean Initiative") performed an inspection of the roof at the home of Marissa M. Arambulo and Exequiel Arambulo, who were insured at the time by Defendant California Automobile Insurance Company ("CAIC"). After performing the inspection, Clean Initiative received an assignment of the Arambulos' rights under their policy with CAIC. Clean Initiative sued CAIC for breach of contract and bad faith following CAIC's refusal to pay for the costs to repair damage to the Arambulos' roof.

Pending before the Court is CAIC's motion for an order enforcing a deposition subpoena for production of records from a non-party witness, Capital Pacific Real Estate ("Capital Pacific"), related to the Arambulos' purchase of their home, and for sanctions against counsel for Clean Initiative ("the Motion"). CAIC filed the Motion because the Arambulos objected to the subpoena to Capital Pacific, Clean Initiative asserted the objection for the Arambulos, and Capital Pacific declined to comply with the subpoena in light of the objections.

The Court is granting the Motion to the extent it seeks the production of the records from Capital Pacific . CAIC denied coverage for the costs of repairing the roof at the Arambulos' home on the ground that CAIC's inspection of the roof showed that the damage to it was just wear and tear, which is not covered under theArambulos' policy with CAIC. The information that CAIC seeks through the subpoena to Capital Pacific, which is likely to include reports of inspections of the roof that were conducted at the time of the Arambulos' purchase of their home, is relevant to CAIC's defense to Clean Initiative's claim that CAIC breached its contract with Arambulo in denying coverage for the cost to repair the roof and acted in bad faith in so doing. Any privacy interests that the Arambulos have in financial or other information unrelated to the roof that is contained in the Capital Pacific records are outweighed by CAIC's interest in defending itself in this litigation. As the Court indicated at the informal discovery conference that was conducted on this discovery dispute before CAIC filed the Motion, any privacy concerns can be addressed through a protective order. Furthermore, any defect in the notice to the Arambulos is academic because the Arambulos were fully aware of the subpoena in time to object to it. In light of the Court's ruling, Capital Pacific is directed to produce the records that were subpoenaed within 21 days from today's hearing on the Motion.