Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV27827, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV27827, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 29 - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS IMPORTANT (PLEASE SEND YOUR E-MAIL TO DEPT. 29 NOT DEPT. 2)

Communicating with the Court Staff re the Tentative Ruling 1. Please notify the courtroom staff by email not later than 9:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. The email address is SSCDEPT29@lacourt.org. Please do not use any other email address. 2. You must include the other parties on the email by "cc." 3. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the Subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. THE COURT WILL HEAR ARGUMENT UNLESS BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. 4. Include the words "SUBMISSION BUT WILL APPEAR" if you submit, but one or both parties will nevertheless appear. 5. For other communications with Court Staff a. OFF-CALENDAR should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed to have a matter placed off-calendar. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) date of proceeding. b. CASE SETTLED should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have agreed that the case has settled for all purposes. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) whether notice of settlement/dismissal documents have been filed; (c) if (b) has not been done, a date one year from the date of your email which will be a date set by the court for an OSC for dismissal of the case. c. STIPULATION should appear in all caps in the Subject line where all parties have stipulated that a matter before the court can be postponed. All counsel should be cc'ed (and where appropriate parties not represented by counsel) and the body of the email should state: (a) name and case number; (b) what proceeding is agreed to be postponed e.g. Trial, FSC; (c) the agreed-upon future date; (d) whether all parties waive notice if the Court informs all counsel/parties that the agreed-upon date is satisfactory. This communication should be used only for matters that are agreed to be postponed and not for orders shortening time. 6. PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT ALL COMMUNICATIONS WITH COURT STAFF DEAL ONLY WITH SCHEDULING AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS AND DO NOT DISCUSS THE MERITS OF ANY CASE. (UPDATED 6/17/2020)
IMPORTANT: In light of the COVID-19 emergency, the Court encourages all parties to appear remotely. The capacity in the courtroom is extremely limited. The Court appreciates the cooperation of counsel and the litigants.
ALSO NOTE: If the moving party does not contact the court to submit on the tentative and does not appear (either remotely or in person), the motion will be taken off calendar. THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL NOT BE THE ORDER OF THE COURT.

Case Number: 21STCV27827 Hearing Date: November 22, 2024 Dept: 29

Castanho v. Al-Marri
21STCV27827
Defendant’s Motion to Quash Trial Subpoena

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 12, 2021, Olivia Castanho (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Mahamed Ahmad M.A. Al-Marri, Avis Budget Group, Inc., Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Budget Rent A Car System, Inc., Payless Car Rental, Inc., Budget Truck Rental LLC, Zipcar, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on October 28, 2019.

On July 14, 2023, Mahamed Ahmad M.A. Al-Marri (“Defendant”) filed an answer.

All other named defendants were dismissed in August 2023.

On October 28, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to quash the trial subpoena issued by Plaintiff seeking to compel defense expert, Amandeep Bhalla, to produce certain financial records at trial. Plaintiff filed an opposition on November 8, and Defendant filed a reply on November 15.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 provides for the issuance of a subpoena compelling a witness to appear for a legal proceeding and, if requested, to bring documents to the proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (a).) A subpoena is the only procedure for compelling a third-party witness to attend trial and produce documents; a subpoena may also be used for a party, as an alternative to a Notice to Appear or Notice to Produce under Code of Civil Procedure 1987.

Subdivision (b) of section 1985 provides:

“A copy of an affidavit shall be served with a subpoena duces tecum issues before trial, showing good cause for the production of the matters and things described in the subpoena, specifying the exact matters or things desired to be produced, setting forth in full detail the materiality thereof to the issues involved in the case, and stating that the witness has the desired matters or things in his or her possession or under his or her control.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 1985, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1, subdivision (a), states:

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 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 or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”

In ruling on a motion to quash brought under section 1987.1:

“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).)

Discussion

On or about October 7, 2024, Plaintiff issued a trial subpoena to Dr. Amandeep Bhalla, an expert witness designated by Defendant. (Fitzgerald Decl., ¶ 6 & Exh. C.) The subpoena directed Dr. Bhalla to appear at trial and produce the following documents:

“Financial records including complete tax filings (state and federal), profit and loss statements, and supporting documents such as checks and receipts detailing payments received by Dr. Amandeep Bhalla for professional services relating to income generated from medical-legal services only for the years 2021 through 2024.”

(Ibid.)

Defendant now moves to quash the trial subpoena.

Beginning with the tax returns, these documents are privileged. (Schnabel v. Super. Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 721; Sav-On Drugs v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 1, 6; Webb v. Standard Oil Co. (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-514; see also 2 Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (2024), ¶ 8:112.) Although the privilege is not absolute, Plaintiff has not shown that a public policy greater than that of the confidentiality of tax returns is implicated in these circumstances or that there has been a waiver by Dr. Bhalla.

As to the other documents requested in the subpoena, Plaintiff has not “specif[ied] the exact matters or things desired to be produced” or “set[]forth in full detail the materiality thereof to the issues involved in the case,” as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985. In the context of pre-trial discovery under the Civil Discovery Act, a request to produce a category of documents is generally proper, but a trial subpoena requires a significantly higher degree of particularity. That test is not satisfied here.

Accordingly, the motion to quash is granted.

The Court need not reach, and does not reach, the other grounds set forth in the motion to quash.

The request for sanctions is denied. The Court does not find that Plaintiff has acted in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to quash.

The Court QUASHES the trial subpoena bearing a date of issuance of October 7, 2024, directed to Dr. Amandeep Bhalla.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.