Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21TRCV00715 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21TRCV00715, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00715 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: May 9, 2023

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21TRCV00715

¿¿

CASE NAME: Mauro Restrepo v. Sophie Adams, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Defendant,

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Records and/or For the Issuance of a Protective Order

Tentative Rulings: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action. On October 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed an First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants, Sophie Adams aka Sophia Adams, Sofie Adams, Sophie Psychic Services dba Palos Verdes Estates Psychic Love Specialist by Sophia, dba Psychic Reading Meditation Center by Sophie, George R. Adams, Tiffany Johnson aka Tiffany Adams, Christ Koutroumbus, Polly Koutroumbus, and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively “Defendants”.) The FAC states causes of action for: (1) Fraud; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (3) Unfair Competition. After demurrers, on April 11, 2023 Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint stating a single cause of action for Unfair Competition under Section 17200 of the Business & Professions Code.

B. Procedural¿¿

On September 6, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas for Records and/or for Issuance of a Protective Order. To date, no opposition has been filed.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

Generally, discovery in California is a broad right. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010, see also Gonzalez v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Greyhound Corporation v. Superior Court of Merced County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 376.) The standards for judicial limitations on discovery are governed by section 2017.020, which states that: “[t]he court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020(a).)

However, when privacy rights are implicated, the broad sweep of discovery is significantly narrowed, such that information can be discovered on a showing of a particularized need by the party seeking discovery, and by demonstrating that the discovery sought is directly relevant to a claim or defense, and that there is no less intrusive alternative. (Britt v. Superior Court (1978 20 Cal.3d 844.) Once good cause for production has been shown, the objecting party has the burden to file evidence to justify objections including those based upon privacy. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 97-98.) If the court determines that the records are directly relevant to the action, it must carefully balance the need for discovery against the right of privacy. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)

B. Discussion

Here, Defendants assert that this Plaintiff has requested phone records of all of the Defendants. However, Defendants argue that there is no basis to seek phone records of any Defendant. Defendants argue that this case is allegedly about a Plaintiff who claims to suffer from “male suerte” or bad luck after engaging in Defendant, Sophia Adam’s services for a Tarot Card reading. Defendants note that Plaintiff is claiming to suffer economic loss of his $1,000 deposit. However, Defendants argue that this case must not be about the event alleged in the original Complaint, namely, the $1,000 downpayment in psychic services and a crystal, particularly because Plaintiff has not even asked for his money back. Instead, Defendants now allege that they believe this case is about a territory dispute between psychics, where a wealthy competitor staged a dispute and is funding litigation to drive off competition. Defendants allege that seeking pone records of two competing psychics, namely Sophia Adams and her daughter Tiffany Winston, would be the objective of a competitor, not a Plaintiff with the claim alleged in the complaint. The phone records subpoenas were served many months before the Complaint was amended to state a violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

Subpoenaing phone records from all of the Defendants without a clear understanding of why such phone records are requested, does not seem a justified reason as to intrude on the Defendants’ privacy rights. In the absence of any showing form the Plaintiff, the Court is inclined to grant the Motion to Quash is GRANTED.