Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00732, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00732, Date: 2023-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00732 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: March 22, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00732

CASE NAME: Andreea Popa; Robert Popa v. Ian Anthony White, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Ian Anthony White

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs, Andreea Popa and Robert Popa

TRIAL DATE: Not Set

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Manhattan Beach Police Department

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Rulings: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records is DENIED.

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions are DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On May 13, 2023, Plaintiffs, Andreea Popa and Robert Popa (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against Defendant, Ian Anthony White, and DOES 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges causes of action for personal injuries, property damage, and punitive damages.

The lawsuit arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 1, 2022 at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Manhattan Beach Boulevard in Manhattan Beach, California. Plaintiff contends that Defendant was found to have been under the influence of alcohol or an unknown substance at the time of the accident and was subsequently arrested and charged with felony violations of California Vehicle Code §§ 23153(a) and (b). Plaintiff also notes that the case was prosecuted by the Los Angeles District Attorney, which resolted in Defendant pleading nolo contendere to a misdemeanor violation of California Vehicle Code Section 23152(b).

Previously, this Court GRANTED Defendant, Ian Anthony White’s Motion to Quash on December 13, 2023. Defendant notes that on January 16, 2024, Plaintiffs’ Amended Deposition Subpoena Production of Business Records were served on the Manhattan Beach Police Department seeking documents which Defendant argues: (1) constitute an invasion of DEFENDANT’S privacy rights; and (2) irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant admissible evidence. Defendant contends that based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations to this Court at the prior hearing, Plaintiffs were permitted to re-issue an amended subpoena seeking only the police report and toxicology report from the date of the subject accident. However, despite this, Defendant still contends that Plaintiffs’ amended subpoena still seeks documents beyond those expressly permitted by the Court in ruling on Defendant’s prior motion to quash.

As such, Defendant has brought forth this Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Amended Deposition Subpoena Production of Business Records served on the Manhattan Beach PD on January 16, 2024.

B. Procedural

On February 9, 2024, Defendant filed this Motion to Quash Amended Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On March 15, 2024, Defendant filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS ¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 states, “When a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of [documents], the court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, the witness or any consumer described in Section 1985.3…may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” “The court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the parties, the witness, or the consumer from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of a witness’s or consumer’s right of privacy.” (Ibid.)

Civil Code section 3294, subdivision (a) authorizes punitive damages in non-contract cases “where the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” “Malice [is defined as] conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights and safety of others.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(1).) “Oppression” means “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.” (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (c)(2).) The “act of operating a vehicle while intoxicated may constitute an act of ‘malice’ under section 3294 if performed under circumstances which disclose a conscious disregard of the probable dangerous consequences.” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 892.) Two cases, Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890 and Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, illustrate the specificity and gravity required to support a claim of punitive damages against an allegedly intoxicated driver.

B. Discussion

Here, the amended subpoena request seeks the following:

1. THE POLICE REPORT (“Police Report” as used herein shall mean – “Law enforcement writes a report that describes what information they have about whether someone committed a crime. “it will include what they saw or heard, what evidence they’ve collected, and what any witnesses said. “If they have it, it will include pictures, videos, transcripts of recorded statements, and lab reports. “it usually says what charges, for what crimes, they recommend the district attorney should file.”) (FN.1) ARISING OUT OF (“ARISING OUT OF” as used herein shall mean originating from, growing out of, or flowing as used herein shall mean originating form, growing out of, or flowing from.) the Manhattan Beach Police Department’s arrest of MR. WHITE as or about 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter on March 1, 2022, only.

2. The TOXICOLOGY REPORT (“TOXICOLOGY REPORT” as used herein shall mean documentation of the results of various tests that determine the type and approximate amount of legal and illegal drugs a person has taken by measuring how much is in their blood, urine, or other bodily fluid.) (FN2) ARISING OUT OF Manhattan Beach Police Department’s arrest of MR. WHITE at or about 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter on March 1, 2022, only.

Defendant seeks to quash the subpoena because: (1) he argues it is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation; (2) the subpoena seeks private information in violation of the patent-physician privilege; (3) the defendant has a constitutional right of privacy in his medical records; and (4) Plaintiffs’ subpoena is overbroad and fails to identify the requested documents with particularity.

Defendant argues that the subpoena should be quashed because it is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. The Court disagrees. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ amended subpoena to MBPD for Defendants medical records regarding his blood alcohol test results and arrest records are neither relevant to the subject accident nor are they reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court disagrees.

Plaintiffs’ counsel maintains that the records are necessary to determine whether Defendant was intoxicated at the time of the subject accident. In response, Defendant asserts that in response to Form Interrogatories, Set One, Defendant unequivocally admitted to: (1) consuming alcohol immediately before driving and earlier in the day of the subject accident, and (2) pleading nolo contendere to Vehicle Code 23152(b) (Driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% of more) in relation to the subject accident. But an admission that Defendant had some amount of alcohol before driving, and that he entered a no contest plea, do not equate to an admission of intoxication or even an admission of negligence. A no contest plea, contrary to a guilty plea, cannot be offered as proof of much of anything at a civil trial. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery of facts from which the trier of fact could find culpable conduct, and the answers to interrogatories by themselves are insufficient for Plaintiff to carry his burden of proof on this point. Thus, the SDT for the relevant records in reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence tending in reason to prove culpable conduct.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs’ counsel’s argument that he is entitled to know about Defendants blood alcohol test results and arrest records as they pertain to punitive damages, as this Court noted in its previous Tentative Ruling in December. (See Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 893, 897.)

Both sides argue about what they recall being discussed in the unrecorded oral argument three months ago. It is highly unlikely, in the Court’s own normal custom and practice, that the Court would have specifically ruled as to whether an attached witness statement or an attached photograph or an attached transcript of a recorded statement would or would not be within the ambit of a reasonable scope of a new SDT to the police department. But the Court so opines now. It is reasonable and the specially defined term in the amended SDT before the Court is not objectionably over broad. If the police took a Mirandized, recorded interview of the defendant, such a statement is reasonably discoverable. If a witness gave the arresting officer a statement that she/he did or did not see evidence bearing on careful or careless driving, such a statement would be reasonably discoverable.

In its previous minute order, the Court noted that the scope of the prior subpoena must be narrowed. It has been. The police report and toxicology were indicated be fair game in a narrowed SDT. allowed. The definition of “arising out of” in the amended SDT speaks only to the incident in this case which occurred on March 1, 2022. This Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently followed this Court’s guidance and provided a more narrow subpoena. As such, this Court DENIES the motion to quash. Consequently, the portion of the motion requesting monetary sanctions is also DENIED. Plaintiffs, in their opposition, argue this Court should instead, award them monetary sanctions. The Court does not believe monetary sanctions should be awarded to either party during this time.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Quash is DENIED. The cross-requests for Monetary Sanctions are both DENIED at this time.

¿¿

Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice.