Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 19PSCV00882, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19PSCV00882    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff William Loo’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena to T-Mobile

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff William Loo’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena to T-Mobile is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action to quiet title. Plaintiff William Loo alleges that Zixi Li (Li), Plaintiff’s wife, acted in concert with others to use the Plaintiff’s name to forge, present, and notarize false powers of attorney and a deed of trust in order to obtain a loan. On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a verified complaint alleging the following causes of action against Li, M. Zha, Agnes N. Nwapa-Jourdan, Summit Capital LLC, the Bernard Rothschild Pension Plan by and through Bernard Rothschild and James Bernard Rothschild as trustees, JMR Investments, Does 1-25, and all persons unknown (collectively, Defendants), alleging the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief, (2) cancellation of instruments, (3) slander of title, (4) quiet title, and (5) unjust enrichment.

On December 5, 2019, Summit Capital LLC and the Bernard Rothschild Pension Plan by and through Bernard Rothschild and James Bernard Rothschild as trustees filed a cross-complaint against Li, M. Zha, and Roes 1-20 for (1) indemnity, (2) contribution, (3) fraud by intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraud by concealment, and (5) negligence of a notary public.

On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 10, 2023. A hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is set for January 17. A final status conference is set for July 6, 2023, and a jury trial is set for July 18, 2023.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendants’ subpoena to T-Mobile for Plaintiff’s cell phone records. For the following reasons, the court finds merit with Plaintiff’s request.

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) 

The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) In ruling on discovery motions, the Court must balance the privacy claims of the responding party with the requesting party’s need for the information. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718-722.)¿ Plaintiff, as the party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).) If Plaintiff meets this standard, Defendant must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)¿ 

“Legally recognized privacy interests [include]  . . . interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’) .  .  .  .”  (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill).)  “A particular class of information is private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity.”  (Ibid.)   

In this case, Defendants request all call originations, call terminations, call attempts, voice and text message transactions, voice communications, LTE and/or IP sessions and destinations with cell site information including the originating and receiving phone numbers or network IDs for all incoming and outgoing call transactions, data transactions, and push to talk sessions relating to Plaintiff’s cell phone account with T-Mobile from January 1, 2018, to present. (Ensberg Decl., Ex. 1, Attachment, ¶ 8.) Defendants also request all records including call logs, call history, billing history, monthly statement information, and cellular service call details containing records, time, and duration of incoming and outgoing calls placed or received by Plaintiff from January 1, 2018, to present. (Ensberg Decl., Ex. 1, Attachment, ¶ 9-14.)

Plaintiff claims a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of Plaintiff’s communications and identity of those with whom Plaintiff has communicated. Plaintiff also argues the disclosure of Plaintiff’s communication would constitute a serious invasion of privacy due to the scope of this request and lack of relevance to the issues in this case.

Defendants have not timely opposed Plaintiff’s motion and therefore have failed to demonstrate what relevance, if any, five years of Plaintiff’s cellular communications have to the issues in this case. Without such information, the court cannot determine if the subpoena is narrowly tailored to the specific issues in this case.

Thus, the court finds Plaintiff carried the threshold burden of establishing a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants’ subpoena to T-Mobile is GRANTED.