Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV45383, Date: 2022-10-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45383 Hearing Date: October 10, 2022 Dept: 39
Ingo
Rademacher v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
Case
No. 21STCV45383
Order
#1 of 2
Motion
to Quash
Plaintiff
Ingo Rademacher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“Defendant”).
Plaintiff alleges as follows: Plaintiff is an actor who has been on the
soap opera “General Hospital” for 25 years.
(First Amended Complaint, ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff requested a religious exemption to Defendant’s mandate that
employees must be vaccinated.
(Ibid.) Defendant represented
that it would grant exemptions for “sincerely held religious objections to
Covid-19 shots,” but “it refused to accept Plaintiff’s request.” (Ibid.)
“[Defendant] subjected [Plaintiff] to half an hour of cross-examination
about his religious beliefs and then denied his exemption request, without
explanation.” (Ibid.) This action followed.
Defendant
served a subpoena upon a third party—Protection of the Educational Rights of
Kids (“PERK”)—seeking all communications between PERK and Plaintiff, as well as
any “donations” to support Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant. PERK supports “medical freedom” and the right
for unvaccinated children to attend school.
It is undisputed that Plaintiff is represented by JW Howard/Attorneys,
Ltd. (“JW Howard”). JW Howard also
represents PERK “in other pending litigation concerning similar Covid-19
mandates and violations resulting from the same.” (Declaration of Scott J. Street, ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff moved
to quash the subpoena, and the Court held a hearing on September 27, 2022. In advance of that hearing, the Court posted a
tentative order that Defendant is not entitled to information concerning
litigation funding. Typically, discovery of a party’s financial condition,
other than applicable insurance policies, is not discoverable. (Doak v. Superior Court for Los Angeles
County (1968) 257 Cal.App.2d 825, 828.)
The Court acknowledges “[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.) This
right is not without limits, and the Court cannot envision any relevance to the
allegation that PERK has helped fund Plaintiff’s litigation. The mere fact that PERK may have a secular
agenda does not call into question the genuineness of Plaintiff’s alleged
religious beliefs. Both PERK and
Plaintiff may advocate for the same thing for different reasons, one secular
and one religious. Defendant’s counsel
submitted on this part of the tentative order.
The Court adopts this part of its tentative order, granting the motion
to quash with respect to litigation funding.
The Court also issued a tentative
order that the motion would be granted except with respect to any
communications between Plaintiff and PERK independent of Plaintiff’s counsel
that reference: (1) Plaintiff’s political, moral, or religious beliefs, (2)
Plaintiff’s views on medical freedom or vaccination, including vaccine
mandates, and (3) Plaintiff’s views on the efficacy of any COVID-19
vaccines. However, following a hearing
on the merits, the Court decided to conduct an in camera review of responsive
documents.
The Court conducted an in camera
review and orders as follows:
1. Exhibit
1-001 to Exhibit 1-002 – The Court reviewed an email from Scott J. Street on
July 1, 2022, at 10:23 a.m., and a response from Mike Bohn on July 1, 2022, at
11:02 a.m. Plaintiff is copied on the
email chain. This email discusses case
logistics and is privileged. The email
does not reference (1) Plaintiff’s political, moral, or religious beliefs, (2)
Plaintiff’s views on medical freedom or vaccination, including vaccine
mandates, and (3) Plaintiff’s views on the efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, the Court grants the motion with
respect to this email.
2. Exhibit
1-005 to Exhibit 1-006 – The Court reviewed an email chain that, in relevant
part, contained an email from Plaintiff on October 17, 2021, at 10:43 a.m. to
Amy Bohn, the president and co-founder of PERK, who replied on October 25,
2021, at 9:11 p.m. The predicate email
chain makes clear that Scott Street introduced Plaintiff and Ms. Bohn via
email. This email is privileged. Although the “common interest privilege” has
not been recognized by statute in California, the common interest doctrine
still applies. (See OXY Resources
California LLC v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 874, 889.) In this case, both Plaintiff and PERK were
clients of JW Howard concerning similar matters, and the record reflects no
intention to waive privilege over this email.
Moreover, the email references litigation funding, which the Court has
found is not relevant. Finally, the
email does not reference (1) Plaintiff’s political, moral, or religious
beliefs, (2) Plaintiff’s views on medical freedom or vaccination, including
vaccine mandates, and (3) Plaintiff’s views on the efficacy of any COVID-19
vaccines. The mere fact that Plaintiff
may have supported PERK’s agenda does not necessarily call into question the
genuineness of his religious beliefs. For
this reason, the Court would exclude this email under Evidence Code section
352. Therefore, the Court grants the
motion with respect to this email.
3. Exhibit #1-007
to Exhibit #1-09 – The Court reviewed an email chain that, in relevant part,
contained an email from Ingo Rademacher on Friday, October 10, 2021, at 8:20
a.m. to Amy Bohn. Amy Bohn replied on December
13, 2021, at 10:42 a.m., and then forwarded the entire chain to Mike Bohn.
The Court has no tentative order whether to grant the
motion with respect to Plaintiff’s email on Friday, October 10, 2021, at 8:20
a.m. Counsel was not copied on the email
from Plaintiff to Ms. Bohn. The email included
a rough opening for Plaintiff’s upcoming interview on the Tucker Carlson show,
which presumably was not intended to be privileged, since he planned to make
the comments on television. Therefore,
the Court may deny the motion with respect to this single email.
4. Exhibit
#1-010 – The Court reviewed an email from Plaintiff on December 7, 2021, at
12:15 pm. to Amy Bohn, who replied on December 7, 2021, at 3:14 p.m. The email chain involves case logistics and fundraising. The email does not reference (1) Plaintiff’s
political, moral, or religious beliefs, (2) Plaintiff’s views on medical
freedom or vaccination, including vaccine mandates, and (3) Plaintiff’s views
on the efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccines.
Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to this email.
5. Exhibit #1-011
– The Court reviewed an email from Scott Street on December 6, 2021, at 11:47
a.m., to Amy Bohn, who replied on December 7, 2021, at 3:19 p.m. The email chain involves fundraising. The email does not reference (1) Plaintiff’s
political, moral, or religious beliefs, (2) Plaintiff’s views on medical
freedom or vaccination, including vaccine mandates, and (3) Plaintiff’s views
on the efficacy of any COVID-19 vaccines.
Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to this email.
Order
#2 of 2
Motion
for Leave to Remove Confidentiality Designation
The
Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s status report, which states that the discovery
referee ordered that the “Confidential” designation be removed from the
documents at issue. Therefore, the
Court’s tentative order is to take the motion off-calendar as moot.