Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCP01857, Date: 2023-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01857    Hearing Date: May 23, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed this action on May 13, 2022 against Defendant Roxana Vasquez (“Defendant”). State Farm’s Petition in this action is titled “Petition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for Superior Court Case Number for the Purpose of Issuing Subpoenas to Witnesses for Documents.”

State Farm indicates that it is an insurer on a claim submitted by Defendant for purported property damage to a 2016 Nissan Sentra, which allegedly occurred on August 17, 2021, in    Los Angeles, California. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 2.) As part of the claim investigation being conducted by State Farm, Defendant was required to produce cellular phone records from MetroPCS for the time period of August 15, 2021 through August 19, 2021. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 4.) Defendant requested the documents from MetroPCS but was told that the records would only be released pursuant to a subpoena. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant signed and notarized an authorization to release the records. (Trafton Decl.,    ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Thereafter, State Farm filed the Petition in this action on May 13, 2022 in order to obtain a case number to issue a subpoena. (Trafton Decl., ¶ 6.)

State Farm issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the Custodian of Records for MetroPCS which is now “Metro by T-Mobile” (the “Subpoena”). (Trafton Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) State Farm indicates that T-Mobile objected to the Subpoena on a number of grounds, including on the grounds that “[a] court order is required for release of pre-paid records.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C.)

State Farm “reached out to MetroPCS and the insureds to meet and confer regarding [a] informal discovery conference.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 13.) On February 1, 2023, counsel for State Farm attended an Informal Discovery Conference (“IDC”). The Court’s February 1, 2023 minute order provides, inter alia, “Plaintiff has fulfilled the Informal Discovery Conference neither defendant nor Metro attended this date.”[1]

State Farm now moves “for an Order to compel compliance with the subpoena to the Custodian of Records for MetroPCS California, LLC.” No opposition to the motion was filed.  

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) provides as follows:

“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.”

State Farm asserts that the Court should compel MetroPCS to comply with the subject Subpoena. State Farm asserts that “[t]here is no dispute that the records are relevant to State Farm’s investigation in this claim and that it will assist State Farm in resolving the coverage questions and issues in this claim.” (Mot. at p. 7:21-24.)

As discussed above, State Farm indicates that it is “an insurer on a claim submitted by its insured, Roxana Vasquez, for purported property damage to a 2016 Nissan Sentra which allegedly occurred on August 17, 2021, in Los Angeles, California.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 2.)[2] The subject Subpoena issued to the Custodian of Records for MetroPCS seeks “[a]ny information relating to the cellular call detail, text message detail, and tower cellular site information relating to cellular phone number (323) 355-8169 for the time period of 8/15/21 through 8/19/21 pursuant to the attached authorization signed by account holder Roxana Vasquez.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 7,  Ex. B.) The subject authorization is also attached to State Farm’s counsel’s declaration.  (Trafton Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.)

The “Authorization Cell Phone Records Request” form provided by State Farm lists Defendant’s signature and is dated March 2, 2022.  (Trafton Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) State Farm also notes that it is notarized. (Ibid.) The form indicates, inter alia, that Defendant “authorize[s] and request[s] that all customer proprietary network information including, but not limited to, detailed call records, data records, cell site tower records, cellular call traffic, and location of cellular calls concerning my listed cellular telephone accounts (by cell phone number), for the period 8/15/21 through 8/19/21, be immediately disclosed to each of the persons designated below.” (Ibid.) The person designated on the form is State Farm’s counsel. (Ibid.) In addition, the cell phone number listed on the form is 323-355-8169. (Ibid.)

Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court finds that State Farm has demonstrated good cause to compel MetroPCS’s compliance with the subject Subpoena.

Lastly, State Farm’s counsel indicates that “MetroPCS informed State Farm’s counsel that it only maintains records for 23 months. The date of loss was 8/17/21 and thus, State Farm requests an order that MetroPCS be required to comply with the subpoena immediately and no later than 7/17/23.” (Trafton Decl., ¶ 18.) MetroPCS did not file any opposition to the instant motion and thus does not oppose this request. 

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court grants State Farm’s motion to compel compliance. The Court orders MetroPCS to comply with the Subpoena by no later than July 17, 2023.

The Court orders State Farm to give notice of this Order. 

DATED:  May 23, 2023                    

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court