SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff, Marcell Keeling, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant, Christian Dyer (“Defendant”) for damages arising from a July 3, 2021 automobile collision. The complaint alleges that Defendant left an unattended vehicle blocking the lane without warning or taillights on, causing the collision. (Compl. at p. 4.) 

Defendant, at this time, seeks to quash a deposition subpoena and subpoena for production of business records issued by Plaintiff to M. Constance Calvin (“Calvin”)/California Highway Patrol (“CHP”).  

Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

 

II. Motion to Quash  

A court “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.” (CCP § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro County Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)   

“[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action,”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)  “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement ...”  (citation).”  These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery, (Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790), and contrary to popular belief fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.  (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 385.) 

Defendant contends that at the time of the incident, Defendant was stopped on the side of the freeway after being involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision. While exchanging contact and insurance information with the other driver, Defendant witnessed Plaintiff rear-end Defendant’s parked vehicle, which caused Defendant’s vehicle to be pushed into the car ahead of Defendant’s vehicle a second time. Defendant argues the deposition subpoena served to Calvin should be quashed, because the records sought by Plaintiff of the first accident did not involve Plaintiff and is not relevant to the lawsuit.  

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the deposition subpoena was served on the Custodian of Records of the CHP, and that the deposition subpoena was for the production of records, videos, and films, not for any testimony to be taken. Further, Plaintiff avers Defendant did not object within the statutory timeframe, and the custodian of records of the CHP had already delivered the subpoenaed items to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel informed defense counsel of receipt of the records, and that Plaintiff’s counsel would not review the items until the parties met and conferred to resolve the dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel avers this is relevant information Defendant omits from his moving papers. Additionally, Plaintiff contends the subpoena is relevant, because Defendant was charged with driving under the influence, and that the claim involves Defendant failing to move his vehicle out of the freeway lane of travel and failure to utilize his hazard lights while parked. Defendant’s first collision, and the traffic collision report related thereto, reflects the nature of the first collision, including the intoxication of Defendant, the position of the cars, and information regarding use of warning lights. 

In reply, Defendant reiterates arguments that Plaintiff is not entitled to the records because they are not relevant or lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  

The Court disagrees with Defendant’s contentions. The first accident, which set up the circumstances leading to the occurrence of the second accident involving Plaintiff, is indeed relevant. “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with [the discovery statutes], any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action....” (See Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1012-13.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....’ [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.” (Id. at 1013.) Further, admissibility is not the standard of relevancy for purposes of discovery. 

 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to quash is DENIED.  

 

  Further, Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions against Defendant. CCP § 1987.2 provides that the court “may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” Under these circumstances, the Court declines to award sanctions.     

 

  Moving party is ordered to give notice.    

 

 

Dated this 18th day of December 2023