Infinity Insurance Company v. Juana Francisca Castellon

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO OBTAIN CELLULAR PHONE RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE OR ALTERNATIVELY, TO ENFORCE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

 

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company brings this petition against its insured, Respondent Juana Francisca Castellon, for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas. Petitioner alleges Respondent is conducting an investigation into a claim after the theft of Respondent’s vehicle, and seeks to obtain cell phone records from the date of the theft from Respondent’s cell phone provider, T-Mobile. Petitioner alleges T-Mobile will not release any records without a subpoena.

Petitioner now moves to compel the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena served on third-party T-Mobile. No oppositions have been filed.  [FN 1]

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED. T-Mobile is ordered to comply with the subpoena issued March 5, 2025.
Petitioner may lodge a Proposed Order as may be needed.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Motion to Compel 

I. Analysis

Petitioner Infinity Insurance Company brought this petition against its insured, Respondent Juana Francisca Castellon, for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas. Petitioner alleges Respondent is conducting an investigation into a claim of the theft of Respondent’s vehicle on December 31, 2024, and seeks to obtain cell phone records from the date of the theft from Respondent’s cell phone provider, T-Mobile. (Pet. ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4.)  

On March 5, 2025, Petitioner issued a Subpoena for Production of Business Records to T-Mobile. (Colman Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. B.) The Subpoena included a signed and notarized Consent to Disclose and Release form from the cellular subscriber, Respondent Castellon, authorizing the release of the requested phone records to Petitioner. (Id.) The Subpoena seeks cellular date from Respondent Castellon at phone number 323-396-0551. (Id., Attachment 3.)

On April 5, 2025, T-Mobile provided notice stating that it could not comply with the subpoena. (Id., Exh. C.) It noted that generally, consent from the account holder is sufficient to release the data pursuant to a subpoena. (Id.) However, it maintained that because Ms. Castellon was on a pre-paid plan, the data could only be released by a court order. (Id.) This motion followed. 

“If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.” (CCP § 2025.480.) Likewise, “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court[,]…the court, upon motion reasonably made by any [party] or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order…directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare…” (CCP § 1987.1(a); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh (2005) 131 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1351 [“When a subpoenaed nonparty fails to appear for a deposition or produce documents that were properly requested, the party who subpoenaed the witness may move to compel compliance with the subpoena.”].)

Here, Petitioner has established that the cellular data is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” in this action and in the underlying investigation more generally. (CCP § 2017.010.) Moreover, it appears there is no other way to obtain this data from anyone but T-Mobile. Finally, there is no evidence that T-Mobile will be unduly burdened or prejudiced by the discovery here. Similarly, Ms. Castellon, Petitioner’s insured, has consented to the release of her cell data, and thus does not face any prejudice. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion is GRANTED. T-Mobile is ordered to comply with the subpoena issued March 5, 2025. 

II. Sanctions

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 27, 2025 ___________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court


FN 1 - Petitioner served the motion on Respondent by First Class Mail and personal service on April 14, 2025. (See Proof of Service.) Petitioner served the motion on non-party T-Mobile by First Class Mail, Personal Service, Email, and Fax on the same date. (Id.) This complies with the service requirements of Rule of Court Rule 3.1346, which requires that “written notice and all moving papers supporting a motion to compel an answer to a deposition question or to compel production of a document or tangible thing from a nonparty deponent must be personally served on the nonparty deponent…” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1346 [emphasis added].)