Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV2935, Date: 2022-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV2935    Hearing Date: September 27, 2022    Dept: 39

Yesica Castro, et al. v. Samuel Velazquez, et al.

Case No. 21STCV2935

Motion to Quash

            Plaintiffs Yesica Castro, Ceici Castro Castaneda, and Mario Antonio Salguero Castro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant William Vatha Moore (“Defendant Moore”) and Samuel Velazquez (“Defendant Velazquez”), among others, based on the death of Decedent German Castro Salguero (“Decedent”) in a motor vehicle collision. 

            Defendant M.T. Towing Systems (“M.T. Towing”) moves to quash or modify Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena.  If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

In this case, the subpoena requests information about the tow services Deponent provided after the accident at issue.  The scope of discovery is very broad, and “[i]n our discovery statutes the Legislature has authorized fishing expeditions.”  (Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 733, 739, fn. 4, internal quotations and citations omitted.)  However, it is not boundless, and the Court’s analysis of this issue was complicated by Plaintiffs’ counsel not filing an opposition brief.  Therefore, the Court grants the motion in part and limits the subpoena to the following documents, which clearly are relevant to this case:

1.         Documents sufficient to identify the time M.T. Towing received a call to dispatch a tow truck to the incident, as well as documents sufficient to identify what information M.T. Towing received about the incident with the initial call for service.

2.         Documents sufficient to identify the time M.T. Towing actually dispatched the tow truck.

3.         Documents sufficient to identify the time the tow truck actually arrived at the incident.

4.         Any non-privileged reports or written communications that M.T. Towing or its employees prepared concerning the incident. 

5.         Policies and procedures, if any, concerning the duties and responsibilities of tow truck drivers with respect to roadway debris resulting from a traffic collision that were in effect on the date of the incident.

6.         Policies and procedures, if any, concerning the duties and responsibilities of tow truck drivers with respect to securing the scene for the safety of other motorists.

7.         The identity of the dispatcher on the night of the incident.

8.         The identity of the tow truck driver who was dispatched to the scene.

            The Court has considered M.T. Towing’s counsel’s remaining arguments and finds none to be persuasive.  Counsel argues that M.T. Towing is not liable for the Decedent’s death.  That is not relevant.  Plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery on the circumstances surrounding his death, regardless of whether Deponent is liable. 

Counsel argues the information Plaintiff seeks is equally available from other sources.  That is immaterial.  Deponent cannot show that Plaintiff already has the documents in Deponent’s possession.  (See Calcor Space Facility v. Sup. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 225.) 

Counsel argues Plaintiff violated Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6.  Prior to serving a subpoena on a third party for the production of employment records, the party seeking the discovery must serve a copy of the subpoena on the individual to whom the records pertain.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.6, subd. (b.)  The Court’s limitation addresses this issue.

Finally, Counsel argues that the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive.  If Deponent contends that the discovery is unduly burdensome, Deponent was required to advance evidence of “the quantum of work required . . . ,” along with evidence to show “that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought.”  Such evidence would include evidence of “the total man hours required to accomplish the task.”  (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.)  Deponent advances no such evidence.  Regardless, the Court’s limitation addresses this issue.

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         The motion to quash is granted in that the Court limits the subpoena as reflected in this order.

            2.         M.T. Towing’s request for sanctions is denied.

            3.         Counsel for M.T. Towing shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.