Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01587, Date: 2023-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01587    Hearing Date: April 18, 2023    Dept: W

SHAHIN CHERMAHINI V. KAREN VIGNA KAUFMAN

PLAINTIFF CHERMAHINI’S MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA FOR INSURANCE RECORDS

Date of Hearing:        April 18, 2023                                                Trial Date:       N/A

Department:              W                                                                    Case No.:        22VECV01587

Moving Party:            Plaintiff Shahin Chermahini

Responding Party:     Defendant Karen Vigna Kaufman

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action. Plaintiff Shahin Chermahini alleges Defendant Karen Vigna negligently operated her vehicle causing an auto accident between Plaintiff and Defendant. The accident occurred on September 10, 2021. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting causes of action for negligence.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Chermahini’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena for Insurance Records Is Denied.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Shahin Chermahini moves the court for an order quashing Defendant’s give subpoenas to Alliance United Insurance Company on the grounds that Defendant’s subpoenas as written are overly broad as to time and subject matter, invade Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy, and represent an unnecessarily invasive fishing expedition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary.  Section 1987.1 states, “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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.” 

Insurance Code section 791.13 provides, in part, that an insurance institution shall not disclose any personal or privileged information about an individual collected or received in connection with an insurance transaction unless the disclosure is with the written authorization of the individual or in response to a facially valid administrative or judicial order, including a search warrant or subpoena.  (Ins. Code, § 791.13(a), (h); see also Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 321 [discovery of insurance claim files may be conditioned on obtaining the written consent of the persons to whom the files relate].)

Plaintiff argues the subpoenas invade Plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy, are overbroad as to scope and manner, are boilerplate in nature, and seek privileged information. Each of the subpoenas seek the following information from Plaintiff’s insurance company:

Pertinent NON-PRIVILEGED records from the claim file including but not limited to ORIGINAL photographs, repair estimates, repair bills, statements of witnesses, statements of your insured, medical bills, medical records, medical reports, investigative reports, police reports, employment and loss of earnings information, proof of medical payments, personal injury settlements, releases and dismissals pertaining to: Policy Holder Shahin Chermahini

In opposition[1], Defendant argues not only does Insurance Code 791.13 specifically provide for production of insurance records in response to a valid subpoena, but these objections cannot be applicable as Defendant requests only “non-privileged materials.” Defendant further contends good cause exists as Plaintiff is claiming a number of physical injuries and activity limitations as a result of the subject accident.

Although Plaintiff has raised an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in their insurance records and medical history, Plaintiff’s privacy interests must be balanced against Defendant’s right to obtain discovery of the existence and contents of a Plaintiff’s liability insurance coverage as well as prior medical conditions. “The 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. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.  A court must then balance these competing considerations.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 533.) Plaintiff has placed their injuries, as well as private records relevant to those injuries, at issue through this lawsuit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Chermahini’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena for Insurance Records is denied.