Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 2020-01127166, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash

 

Defendant Gary Freedline’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Production of Business Records Served on Cox Communications is GRANTED.

 

Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Code, a party may file a motion to quash a subpoena. (Civ. Proc. Code, § 1987.1, subds. (a) & (b) (1).)

 

Defendant asserted that the subpoena served by Plaintiff on Cox Communications violated his right to privacy.  Where the right to privacy is asserted as a protection against discovery, the person raising the objection must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

 

The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. (Id. at p. 557.) The court must then balance these competing considerations. (Ibid.)

 

A compelling interest is required to justify an obvious invasion of an interest fundamental to personal autonomy. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556.)

 

Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks all of Defendant’s web traffic and data traffic, as well as all documents associated with Defendant’s phone number, which he uses for personal and business matters.  Specifically, Plaintiff requested:

 

  1. ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO web traffic and data traffic for the phone number 949-245-9699 for the time period June 2019 through July 2019; and

 

  1. All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO phone number 949-245-9699 for the time period June 2019 through July 2019 including, without limitation, billing statements, phone records and text messages.

 

Plaintiff seeks a broad swathe of Defendant’s information and documents, including personal and business web and data traffic, text messages, billing statements, and phone records, whether or not they have any relation to this litigation.

 

Defendant has a legally protected privacy interest and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal and business information and communications, and the threatened intrusion here is serious.

 

Further, Defendant did not put forth any specific legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves.

 

A subpoena “must describe the documents to be produced with reasonable particularity. Generalized demands, insupportable by evidence showing at least the potential evidentiary value of the information sought, are not permitted.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 218.) Plaintiff’s subpoena are the type of generalized demands prohibited by Calcor.

 

Plaintiff asserts that the motion to quash was not served and not filed timely.  However, the motion to quash was served on 5/23/2022. The fact that the motion was not filed until 06/06/2022 does not make the motion untimely.  Further, Plaintiff fails to point to any prejudice from these alleged failures.

 

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.