Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV09315, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV09315    Hearing Date: May 2, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Plaintiffs Heidi L. Rivera, and Sarahi Rivera’s motion to quash deposition subpoena for business records is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

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. In reply Plaintiffs argue that Defendants have issued another overbroad and invasive subpoena, requesting: “Any and all automobile insurance records for the year 2019 for invoices of payments to the insurance, any and all documents pertaining to proof of insurance, and any application of insurance.” (Reply Chun Decl., Exh. C.) First, an application of insurance form will likely have Plaintiff’s Social Security Number, and defense counsel is clearly not entitled to that. (Id). Second, “any and all insurance records for the year 2019,” is overbroad and would include documents and/or information that are completely irrelevant to whether Plaintiff had valid auto insurance on April 1, 2019. (Id).

In supplemental briefing, Defendants provide that they have also withdrawn the second subpoena, and all parties have diligently and successfully resolved all the outstanding issues in Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash and worked together to draft a new subpoena issued on April 6, 2023. (Antony Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7;  Exh. E.) Thus far, Plaintiff’s counsel has expressed no issues with this subpoena to Defense counsel. (Id., ¶ 7.)

As such, the Court finds motion to quash is MOOT.

              Sanctions

Plaintiffs request sanctions pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 for the misuse of discovery. The request is denied. First, there has been no misuse of discovery here. Second, in a recent case, City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, 504, the Court of appeal concluded that: "sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 do not independently authorize the trial court to impose monetary sanctions for misuse of discovery.” (Id.)

Plaintiffs also request sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.2, which states: “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.2(a).)

The Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the request for sanctions under CCP section 1987.2(a). Defense counsel has withdrawn both subpoenas Plaintiffs took issue with and has cooperated with Plaintiffs to come to an agreement as to the third subpoena.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to quash deposition subpoena for business records is DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.