Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 19STCV44140, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 19STCV44140    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                Plaintiff David Dallakian

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant Simple Bar, Inc. (joined by defendant Adroit Private Security, Inc. on December 21, 2022)

Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with this motion.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff David Dallakian (“Plaintiff”) filed his operative First Amended Complaint in this action April 9, 2020, against defendants Simple Bar, Inc. and Adroit Private Security, Inc., based on the alleged assault of Plaintiff at A Simple Bar on November 15, 2019.   

Plaintiff now moves the court for an order (1) quashing or modifying 10 deposition subpoenas served by defendant Simple Bar, Inc. (“Defendant”) on various entities, and (2) awarding attorney’s fees against Defendant and its attorney of record, Tiffiny Walls-Fox and Edlin Gallagher Huie + Blum, in the amount of $2,860, payable to Plaintiff.

Defendant served the subject deposition subpoenas on the following entities: (1) Burbank High School; (2) Glendale Community College; (3) Academy of Business Leadership; (4) Los Angeles Police Department; (5) Los Angeles County Jail; (6) California Department of Corrections; (7) Los Angeles County Probation Department; (8) Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office; (9) Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department; and (10) United States Probation and Pretrial Office (collectively, the “Subpoenas”).  (Ghavimi Decl., ¶ 4; Ghavimi Decl., Ex. 1a-j.)

The Subpoenas, generally, request the production of documents concerning Plaintiff’s (1) educational background, including educational records, transcripts, enrollment records, and the grades received from Burbank High School, Glendale Community College, and Academy of Business Leadership, and (2) criminal history, including police reports, investigation reports, incident reports, photos, in and out-of-custody dates, probation reports, District Attorney recommendations and memoranda, including recommendations relating to charges and prosecution, and dashcam/body camera video footage from various law enforcement agencies.  (Ghavimi Decl., Ex. 1a-j.)  Defendant has requested the production of documents ranging from 2006 to the present.  (Ghavimi Decl., Ex. 1a [requesting documents from Burbank High School from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010], Ex. 1c [requesting documents from Academy of Business Leadership from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008].)  Plaintiff moves the court for an order quashing the deposition subpoenas as overbroad, and for requesting the production of documents protected by the right to privacy.

The court grants Plaintiff’s motion to quash the Subpoenas served by Defendant on the entities described above.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

First, the court finds that the Subpoenas call for the production of records and information that are not relevant to the subject matter involved in this action, and are not admissible in evidence or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) 

Second, the court finds that the Subpoenas call for the production of records and information that are protected by the right to privacy. 

“The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.  [Citation.]  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.”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 [internal citation omitted].)  The court “must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Ibid.)

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by the parties, the court finds that the invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy requires quashing the Subpoenas.  First, Plaintiff has set forth a legally protected privacy interest in his past educational records and the extensive records relating to past arrests and/or any alleged potential criminal activity unrelated to the incident complained of in this action.  (Denari v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1488, 1498 [“release of arrest records or dissemination of information about arrests implicate[s] the right to privacy of the arrestees”]; Porten v. University of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 832 [“recently enacted federal and state statutes recognize a right of privacy in student records”].)  Second, there is an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in educational records from the schools Plaintiff attended, as well as the records relating to any investigations concerning alleged criminal activity requested in the subpoenas, including records of arrests that did not lead to a conviction.  Third, the threatened intrusion is serious.  The Subpoenas served by Defendant request documents that are not relevant to the subject matter of this action, and instead include overbroad requests as to the educational records from the schools Plaintiff has attended since high school, and as to, inter alia, “all” arrest records, reports, investigation and other notes, photos, dashcam and body camera video footage, and incident reports relating to Plaintiff.  The court finds that Defendant has not raised legitimate and countervailing interests supporting disclosure in light of this intrusion on Plaintiff’s right to privacy.  (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at pp. 552-553.)

The court denies Defendant’s request that the court modify the education subpoenas to request information regarding “student complaints, academic discipline, investigative reports, arrests, charges, criminal complaints, and instances involving acts of violence, fighting, using racial slurs—including the ‘N’ word—, exaggerated anger, anger/emotional control, alcohol misuse/abuse, drug misuse/abuse, gang affiliation, and acts of bravado.”  (Opp., p. 2:4-9.)

The court finds that one or more of the requirements of the Subpoenas were oppressive and therefore grants Plaintiff’s request that the court award Plaintiff the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making this motion against Defendant and its counsel of record, Edlin Gallagher Huie + Blum, jointly and severally.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)  The court finds that $2,860 is a reasonable amount of expenses to award against Defendant and its counsel in connection with this motion.  (Ghavimi Decl., ¶ 7.)

The court denies Defendant’s request that the court award Defendant the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in opposing this motion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

The court denies Plaintiff’s request, in reply, that the court set an Order to Show Cause re: why sanctions should not be imposed on Defendant for their frivolous opposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5.

ORDER

            The court grants plaintiff David Dallakian’s motion to quash or modify overbroad criminal and educational records subpoenas issued by defendant Simple Bar, Inc.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

The court orders that the following deposition subpoenas are quashed:

1.     Deposition Subpoena served on Burbank High School by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

2.     Deposition Subpoena served on Glendale Community College by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

3.     Deposition Subpoena served on Academy of Business Leadership by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

4.     Deposition Subpoena served on Los Angeles Police Department by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

5.     Deposition Subpoena served on Los Angeles County Jail by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

6.     Deposition Subpoena served on California Department of Corrections by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

7.     Deposition Subpoena served on Los Angeles County Probation Department by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

8.     Deposition Subpoena served on Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022;

9.     Deposition Subpoena served on Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022; and

10.  Deposition Subpoena served on United States Probation and Pretrial Services Office by Simple Bar, Inc. on August 19, 2022.

The court grants plaintiff David Dallakian’s request for an award of reasonable expenses against defendant Simple Bar, Inc., and its counsel.

The court orders defendant Simple Bar, Inc. and its counsel, Edlin Gallagher Huie + Blum, jointly and severally, to pay to plaintiff David Dallakian attorney’s fees in the amount of $2,860 within 30 days of the date of this order.

The court orders plaintiff David Dallakian to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  January 5, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court