In reply, Plaintiff contends that the motion is not procedurally defective because Plaintiff personally served National on September 15, 2023. (Reply, Needleman Decl. ¶3; Exh. 1.) 

II. Legal Standard 

Per CRC 3.1346, when moving to compel a non-party to comply with a deposition subpoena, all moving papers must be served on the non-party by personal service.  

The separately filed proof of service demonstrates personal service of the moving papers on National. (Notice of Filing POS, Sept. 18, 2023.) Therefore, the Court will consider the motion on the merits. 

A deposition subpoena may command only the production of business records without attendance at a deposition from a nonparty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020, subd. (b).) A deposition subpoena that requires only the production of documents “shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (a).) A deposition subpoena for the production of business documents need not be accompanied by an affidavit of good cause and must be directed at the custodian of records or other person qualified to certify those documents. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.410, subd. (c).) The responding party must comply with a deposition subpoena on a date that is no earlier than 20 days after the issuance or 15 days after service of the subpoena, whichever is later. (Id.)   

A deposition subpoena is enforceable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.030.) After notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court may issue an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon terms and conditions as the Court may declare. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (d).) Courts also have the authority to protect the responding person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (Id.) 

In this case, Plaintiff contends decedent Chan had a history of street racing, crashes and speeding violations. Plaintiff argues Chan was street racing when he lost control of the vehicle, which killed Chan, and injured two passengers of the vehicle, one of which was Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends Defendant Dong’s insurer may have information pertaining to notice that Dong negligently entrusted the vehicle to Chan, because Chan received two speeding tickets in Dong’s BMW 7 months before the subject crash. Defendants aver that Defendant Dong was not present at the time of the incident, but that Dong provided to decedent Chan permission to drive a blue Tesla Model Y, the specific vehicle involved in the incident. Plaintiff contends Chan hit a dip in the road, causing him to lose control of the vehicle. Plaintiff was an unrestrained passenger in the subject Tesla, and was ejected from the vehicle.  

The deposition subpoenas to Dong’s insurer seeks documents related to Dong’s insurance coverage generally, and claims, collisions, or citations related to two vehicles owned by Dong. The Court examines each request objected to by Defendants. 

Request 1 seeks, “Any and all DOCUMENTS, including any and all policies and correspondence, pertaining to insured DONG (owner of insurance policy No. 2007924398).”  

Request 7 seeks, “Any and all DOCUMENTS relating to any insurance claims involving DONG’s 2020 Tesla Model Y, License Plate No. 8SZR339, from January 1, 2019 to present.” 

As to each of the above requests, except for request 3, the Court agrees that the requests are overly broad and encompass information not relevant to the subject action. Specifically, the requests are not limited to claims related to use of a vehicle by decedent Chan, and/or are not limited to a time period relevant to the date of the subject incident. In terms of Defendants’ contention regarding the BMW, which was not involved in the incident, narrowly tailored document requests may potentially lead to admissible evidence to support Plaintiff’s allegations that Dong permitted Chan use of Dong’s vehicle despite knowledge of Chan’s unfitness to drive.   

Therefore, the Court orders the following: 

Requests 1, 2, 6, and 7 are limited to documents related to raised insurance rates, speeding tickets, insurance claims, and/or correspondence for use of either the 2020 Tesla Model Y, bearing License Plate No. 8SZR339, and/or 2020 BMW bearing License Plate No. 8RGN407, specifically related to Dylan Tszking Chan from the years January 1, 2019 to the present day.  

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: