Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV11316, Date: 2023-09-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV11316 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s
motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas to Transparent Arts, Inc. and Blizzfull
is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendants’
request for sanctions is DENIED.
Background
On March
24, 2021, Plaintiff Ryan Seong (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Abel Garcia-Gamino; Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and
Rasier-CA, LLC alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2)
general negligence. The complaint arises
from an alleged automobile accident which occurred on February 8, 2020.
On November 2, 2021,
Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and Rasier-CA, LLC
(“Defendants”) filed a motion to compel arbitration. On November 16, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel
arbitration.
On December 2, 2021,
after hearing and oral argument, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel
arbitration and ordered the proceedings of this action stayed pending the
outcome of the parties’ arbitration.
On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff
filed and served a motion to quash Defendants’ subpoenas to the following
entities: (1) Transparent Arts, Inc.; and (2) Blizzfull. On August 23, Defendants filed an opposition
and request for sanctions. On August 30,
Plaintiff filed a reply.
The hearing on the motion
was set for September 7, 2023.
On September 7, 2023, the
Court held a status conference. The Court
was advised that despite some significant delays, the arbitrator had been
selected and an arbitration is pending. Also
on Septembrer 7, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the motion
to quash.
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. (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
Judicial
Notice
The Court
GRANTS Defendants’ request for judicial notice pursuant to California Evidence
Code, Section 452(d).
The Motion
to Quash
Defendants
contend that because the action is stayed pending the resolution of the
arbitration, this motion should have been directed to the arbitrator, rather
than to this Court.
Code of
Civil Procedure section 1281.4 provides that “[i]f a court of competent
jurisdiction … has ordered arbitration
of a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending
before a court of this State, the court in which such action or proceeding is
pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the
action or proceeding until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order
to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.” California Rules of Court, rule 3.515(h)
provides that “[u]nless otherwise specified in the order, a stay order suspends
all proceedings in the action in which it applies. A stay order may be limited
by its terms to specified proceedings, orders, motions, or other phases of the
action to which the order applies.”
Where a
stay of proceedings has been ordered by the court pending arbitration, a court may
hear only matters concerning compliance with the court’s order to arbitrate. (McCluskey
v. Henry (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 1197, 1206-1207.) A stay of proceedings pending the completion
of arbitration places the proceedings before the trial court in a “twilight
zone” of abatement. (Pinela v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 227, 238.) The court retains inherent power, however, to revisit
the foundational question of whether the parties are bound to by the arbitration
agreement and (2) to revise any other interim ruling. (Ibid.)
Here, the
parties – after some substantial delays – are now before an arbitrator. The scope of the matters before the
arbitrator include discovery disputes such as the one at issue in this
motion. Accordingly, the Court denies
the motion to quash, but, to be clear, the denial is not on the merits; the
denial is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a motion to quash (or other
appropriate procedural vehicle in the context of the arbitration) to challenge
the subpoenas at issue.
Sanctions
Defendants’
request for sanctions is denied. There
have been substantial delays in the progress of the arbitration, and, given the
important privacy issues that are at stake, Plaintiff’s conduct in filing the
motion in court – although incorrect – was substantially justified.
Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendants’
subpoenas to Transparent Arts, Inc. and Blizzfull is DENIED without prejudice.
Defendants’ request for sanctions is denied.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.