Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV42084, Date: 2023-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV42084 Hearing Date: March 6, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff Sindy Carolina
Mejia Climaco’s motion to quash deposition subpoena is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.
Defendant Jaclyn Salvatore De
Rose and attorney of record, Derick Hovsepian, are ordered to pay $1,022 in
sanctions, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.
Legal Standard
When a subpoena has been issued requiring the attendance of a
witness or the production of documents, electronically stored information, or
other things before a court or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon
motion “reasonably made” by the party, the witness, or any consumer whose
personal records are sought, 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 and
conditions as the court may specify. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Southern
Pac. Co. v. Superior Court (1940) 15 Cal.2d 206.)
The
court can make an order quashing or modifying a subpoena as necessary to
protect a person from “unreasonable or oppressive demands, including
unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the
person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)
For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might
reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or
facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33
Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.) Generally, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the
subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible
evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ.
Proc. § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.)
Discussion
Plaintiff
moves to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoena for insurance records on the
grounds that records are protected under the right to privacy, and are
overbroad, among other things.
Defendant
issued a deposition subpoena to Farmers Insurance Exchange, seeking:
““Any and all non-privileged insurance records
including but not limited to, medical records, correspondence, billing,
payments, claims photographs, explanation of benefits (EOBs), and any other
non-privileged documents contained within the insurance file, pertaining to
[Plaintiff]...”
(Best
Decl., Exh. A.)
Plaintiff
argues the subpoena is overbroad and invasive of her right to privacy. The right of privacy of individuals is protected by the California
Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) The framework for evaluating
invasions of privacy in discovery have been clarified in Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531. There, the California Supreme
Court held that, generally, “[t]he 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. 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. A court must then balance these competing considerations.”
(Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 533, citing Hill v. National
Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.) The court rejected
the cases which held that the party seeking protected information must always
show a compelling need or interest. (Id. at p. 557.)
Instead, the court held, “[o]nly obvious invasions of interest fundamental to
personal autonomy must be supported by a compelling interest.” (Id.)
Here, Plaintiff has raised an objectively reasonable
expectation of privacy in her insurance records and history under the given
circumstances. (See Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at p.
557.) However, as previously discussed, Plaintiff’s privacy interests
must be balanced against Defendant’s right to obtain discovery of the existence
and contents of a plaintiff’s liability insurance coverage. (See Code
Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) Nevertheless, the Court agrees that Defendant’s
request in the subpoena is both overbroad and will contain documents invasive
of Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Defendant does not articulate any
legitimate or important countervailing interest such disclosure would serve, as
they have not opposed the motion. Accordingly, the Court agrees with
Plaintiff that the subpoena should be quashed.
As the subpoena is quashed, the remaining arguments need not
be addressed.
Sanctions
“Except as specified in subdivision (c), in making an order pursuant
to motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1,
the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses
incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s
fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without
substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the
subpoena was oppressive.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd.
(a).
The Court finds that the subpoena was
oppressive as the subpoena is overbroad, violates Plaintiff’s privacy rights
and Defendant is aware of this as this matter has been ruled on in this same
case in this department. Thus, monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,022 ($481
an hour, for two hours, plus $60 in filing fees) are imposed against Defendant
Jaclyn Salvatore De Rose, and her attorney of record, Derick Hovsepian, jointly
and severally, to be paid within 30 days of this order.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is GRANTED.
Defendant Jaclyn Salvatore De
Rose and attorney of record, Derick Hovsepian, are ordered to pay $1,022 in
sanctions, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this order.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.