Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV09315, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09315    Hearing Date: March 23, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Heidi L. Rivera, and Sarahi Rivera’s motion to quash deposition subpoena for business records is CONTINUED for supplemental briefing. Defendants are ordered to provide supplemental briefing, then, Plaintiffs may file a reply. Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiffs’ reply deadlines are pursuant to CCP section 1005.

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

Plaintiffs move to quash Defendant’s deposition subpoena for insurance records on the grounds that the records are protected under the right to privacy, privileged under the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and the subpoenas are overbroad.

Defendants issued a deposition subpoena on Plaintiff’s insurance carrier, Alliance United Insurance Company, seeking:

“Any and all insurance records pertaining to the [Plaintiff], including, medical records, medical bills, declaration pages, correspondence, premium payments, previous and existing claims files, discovery responses, arbitration awards, policy coverage and limit information, applications, color copies of photographs, video tapes, reports and any other documents contained within the insurance company files including but not limited to the following claim numbers:

Special Instructions: Ref: claim number: D046840CA19. Entire claim file.”

Chun Decl., Exh C.)

Defendants argue in opposition that they have now withdrawn the subject subpoena and thus, this motion is moot. While Plaintiffs argue in the reply that Defendants have issued another subpoena, this argument and evidence was offered for the first time in the reply. As such, Defendants have not had an opportunity to respond to this argument. Therefore, the Court will continue the hearing on this motion to allow Defendants to provide supplemental briefing. Then, Plaintiffs may respond.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash deposition subpoena for business records is CONTINUED to May 2, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. for supplemental briefing. Defendants are ordered to provide supplemental briefing, then, Plaintiffs may file a reply. Defendants’ opposition and Plaintiffs’ reply deadlines are pursuant to CCP section 1005.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.