Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV10450, Date: 2023-02-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV10450 Hearing Date: February 28, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Defendants Jose Roberto Alonso and Ponce Ground Service,
LLC’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena
for business records 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 compel a witness’ compliance with a subpoena on such terms and conditions
as appropriate to protect parties or witnesses 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
Defendants move to compel compliance with
their subpoena for Plaintiff’s cell phone records on the date of the incident to
determine whether the plaintiff could have been distracted by using her phone
or texting or verbally communicating on her phone at the time of the accident.
Defendants contend that the Traffic Collision report for the subject accident
indicated that plaintiff’s cell phone was “in use.” (Cochran Decl., Exh. C.)
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has no overriding privacy right to prevent
compliance by AT&T with defendants’ document subpoena for her cell phone
records on the date of the accident. Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit claiming
the defendants are at fault for the accident. What plaintiff was doing leading
up to and at the time of the accident is critical.
Plaintiff
argues the subpoena is 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 cell phone records 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 Defendants’ right to obtain discovery. (See Code
Civ. Proc., § 2017.210.) The Court finds that Defendants’ request in the
subpoena is both overbroad and is invasive of Plaintiff’s right to
privacy. The reason the subpoena is overbroad is because AT&T has
informed Defendants that it cannot simply disclose the records for a single day
and must issue the information for a month-long period. (Cochran Decl., Exh.
B.) Defendants argue there is a legitimate or important countervailing interest
such disclosure would serve because the traffic collision report indicates that
Plaintiff was using her cell phone at the time of the collision. However,
in opposition, Plaintiff correctly points out that the column checked on the
traffic collision report does not indicate that Plaintiff was using her
cellphone, but that she was proceeding straight. (See Saroian Decl., Exh. 1.)
As such, based on a correct reading of the traffic collision report, which
actually indicates Plaintiff was not using her cellphone (id.),
Defendant has not articulated a legitimate and important countervailing
interest that disclosure would serve. While Defendants also broadly argue
Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit claiming the defendants are at fault for the
accident and that what plaintiff was doing leading up to and at the time of the
accident is critical, this is not a legitimate and important countervailing
interest that disclosure would serve, but rather would amount to a fishing
expedition. As such, the motion to compel compliance is DENIED.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel compliance with
subpoena for business records is DENIED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.