Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV46993, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV46993 Hearing Date: September 29, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.
Background
This is a personal injury case that arises
out of an alleged physical attack against Plaintiff Allen Leon Tripolskiy
(“Plaintiff”) that occurred at a New Year’s Eve event at a club on Santa Monica
Boulevard in Los Angeles.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December
27, 2021, asserting causes of action for negligence, premises liability, and
negligent hiring, training, and supervision against Defendants Clubbizz.LLC
(“Clubbizz”), Douglas C. MacLise, Alyce R. MacLise, and Does 1 through 50.
On December 2, 2022, Clubbizz filed an
Answer and a Cross-Complaint for indemnity against Roes 1 through 100.
On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff amended his
Complaint to name Salient Consulting Group Inc. (“Salient”) as Doe 1.
On August 1, 2023, Salient filed a Demurrer
and a Cross-Complaint for indemnity against Clubbizz and Roes 1 through 10. On August
30, the Court overruled Salient’s Demurrer.
On September 5, 2023, Clubbizz filed an Answer
to Salient’s Cross-Complaint.
Before the Court at this time is Plaintiff’s
motion to quash eight deposition subpoenas that Clubbizz issued on or about
June 19, 2023, to various insurance companies seeking records relating to claims
made by Plaintiff before and after the incident at issue here. The eight
subpoenas at issue were directed to: (1) 21st Century Insurance
Company; (2) Carl Warren & Company, LLC; (3) Farmers Insurance Exchange;
(4) Geico Casualty Insurance Company; (5) Great American Insurance Company; (6)
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company; (7) State Farm General Insurance Company;
and (8) Bristol West Insurance Company (collectively, the “Subpoenas”).
Plaintiff filed the motion to quash the
Subpoenas on July 12, Clubbizz filed an opposition on September 1, and
Plaintiff filed a reply on September 8. The hearing was previously set for
September 15 and was continued by the Court, on its own motion, to September
29.
Trial is currently scheduled for
July 17, 2024.
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
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
As an initial matter, the Court rejects the arguments of Clubbizz that
the motion to quash the Subpoenas is untimely or otherwise procedurally
defective.
As to the
merits, Plaintiff argues (primarily) that the Subpoenas seek to compel a
disclosure of information that would violate his privacy rights. Plaintiff also
argues that the Subpoenas overly broad and seek irrelevant information. In
response, Clubbizz asserts (among other
things) that the subpoenas seek relevant information that will show that Plaintiff
is a “serial claimant” who lacks credibility. (See Opp. at 6-7.)
California’s Constitutional right to privacy protects against the
unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information
regarding one’s personal life.¿ (Britt v. Superior Court (1978)20 Cal.3d
844, 855-856.)¿¿This includes medical and financial records.¿(John B. v. Super.
Ct. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1198; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct.
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656.)
In Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, Hill v.
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1, and other cases, the
California Supreme Court has established “a framework for evaluating potential
invasions of privacy.” (Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 552.) First, a
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.” (Id., citing Hill,
supra, 7 Cal.4th at 35-37.) In response, the party seeking the information
may raise “whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests
disclosure serves,” and “the party seeking protection may identify feasible
alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would
diminish the loss of privacy.” (Id., citing Hill, supra, 7 Cal.4th at
37-40.) The court must then “balance these competing considerations.” (Id.)
The party seeking the information need not, however, establish a “compelling
interest” unless the disclosure would be “an obvious invasion of an interest
fundamental to personal autonomy.” (Id. at 556.)
Under the Williams
and Hill framework, Plaintiff here must first establish a legally
protected privacy interest and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Plaintiff
has done so. The insurance company
records covered by the Subpoenas would include medical and financial
information that is protected by the right to privacy, and Plaintiff has an
objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in these records.
Next, the Subpoenas appear on their face to be a serious intrusion into
Plaintiff’s right to privacy. The circumstances around other insurance claims,
including medical and financial information, is private, personal, and sensitive.
At this point, under Williams and Hill, Clubbizz must
identify the “legitimate and important countervailing interests” that
disclosure would serve. For example, Clubbizz may attempt to show that the discovery
sought in the Subpoenas is “directly relevant” to the claims or defenses in
dispute and is “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit.” (Lantz v.
Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854.) Clubbizz has not done so.
Clubbizz speculates but has produced no evidence that, for example, Plaintiff
submitted a prior or subsequent claim to an insurance company for an injury to
the same body parts at issue – or even that Plaintiff has ever suffered a prior
injury to those parts of his body.
In the absence of
such evidence, Clubbizz has not established that there is a legitimate or
important interest sufficient to support a compelled disclosure of information
covered by Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Accordingly, the motion to quash the Subpoenas
is GRANTED.
To be clear,
however, the Court’s ruling is based on a failure of evidence. If, in the
future, Clubbizz obtains evidence that Plaintiff did in fact submit a claim to
an insurance company for an injury to the same parts of his body that he claims
were injured in the incident at issue, Clubbizz may be able to make a
sufficient showing to support the issuance of a subpoena to the insurance
company. Or perhaps not. But that is for another day. The Court’s ruling is limited
to the evidence and argument in the record, not speculation about what might or
might not occur in the future.
The Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Although the Court has rejected Clubbizz’s arguments
on the merits, the Court finds that Clubbizz acted with substantial
justification in issuing the Subpoenas and opposing the motion to quash.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to quash the Subpoenas.
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.