Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2020-01145810, Date: 2022-12-13 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs’ (Aaron Hatch, Melissa Hatch, Wyatt Hatch (a Minor, by an through his Guardian ad Litem, Richard Holroyd), and Luke Hatch, a Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Richard Holroyd) unopposed Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Seeking Business Records and/or for Protective Order (Motion), filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 111, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states, in part, “(a) 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. [¶] (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): [¶] (1) A party. [¶] (2) A witness. . . .”

“The right of privacy is an ‘ “inalienable right” ’ secured by article I, section 1 of the California Constitution. [Citation.] The right of privacy protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of private or personal information and ‘extends to one’s confidential financial affairs as well as to the details of one's personal life.’ [Citation.] (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754.) “The constitutional right of privacy is not absolute; it may be abridged to accommodate a compelling public interest. [Citations.] One such interest, evidenced by California's broad discovery statutes, is ‘ “the historically important state interest of facilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal proceedings.” ’ [Citation.] When an individual’s right of privacy in his financial affairs conflicts with the public need for discovery in litigation, the competing interests must be carefully balanced. [Citation.] Even where the balance weighs in favor of disclosure of private information, the scope of the disclosure will be narrowly circumscribed; such an invasion of the right of privacy ‘ “must be drawn with narrow specificity” ’ and is permitted only to the extent necessary for a fair resolution of the lawsuit.” [Citations.] (Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 316; disapproved on other grounds in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557, fn. 8.)

Williams v. Superior Court (Williams) (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, explains, “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. [Citations.] The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interest disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interest or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. A court must then balance these competing considerations. [Citation.]” “To the extent prior cases require a party seeking discovery of private information to always establish a compelling interest or compelling need, without regard to the other considerations articulated in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633, they are disapproved.” (Id., at p. 557.)

On 7-8-22, Defendants (Edgar Tyson Worth and Worthy Homes, Inc.) issued a Deposition Subpoena directed to the Custodian of Records for CRSG, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker. (Knox-Raphael Decl., ¶ 11 and Exhibit 1.)  The declaration states, “Prior to sending the July 21 meet and confer, I confirmed with Coldwell Banker’s custodian of records (‘COR’), Rob Marroche, that responsive documents did include consumer-related, privacy-protected financial and bank information, and the identity of the sellers (i.e., personal financial information of Plaintiffs,  sellers and Coldwell Banker, the listing contract between sellers and Coldwell Banker, lender-related information, closing documents, escrow instructions/information.)” (Knox-Raphael Decl., ¶ 13.) 

This evidence sufficiently shows that the Deposition Subpoena seeks Plaintiffs’ confidential financial information. (See the categories of requested documents listed in Attachment 3 to the Deposition Subpoena; (Knox-Raphael Decl., ¶ 11 and Exhibit 1.)    Plaintiffs have asserted a legally protected privacy interest in their confidential financial affairs and the sellers’ confidential financial affairs. Defendants do not oppose the Motion. Therefore, Defendants do not raise a countervailing interest that the requested records are necessary to facilitate the ascertainment of truth based on the Complaint’s allegations. The court finds that the requests are overbroad because they will disclose private information as to transactions and people unrelated to allegations in the Complaint.

In conducting the analysis under Williams, the court finds that Defendants have not shown that there is a countervailing interest that outweighs the privacy interests because of the overbreadth of the requests.  Thus, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ (Aaron Hatch, Melissa Hatch, Wyatt Hatch (a Minor, by an through his Guardian ad Litem, Richard Holroyd), and Luke Hatch, a Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Richard Holroyd) unopposed Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Seeking Business Records and/or for Protective Order, filed on 8-1-22 under ROA No. 111.

Plaintiffs are to give notice.