16-CIV-03063 SOKENYA SINGLETARY VS. K1 SPEED, INC., ET AL.

SOKENYA SINGLETARY ROBERT E. CARTWRIGHT, JR, K1 SPEED, INC. JAMES A. D’AMBROSIO

NON-PARTY K1 SPEED, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

 HEARING REQUIRED. COUNSEL SHALL PERSONALLY APPEAR. NO TELEPHONIC APPEARANCES. NO “COVERING” COUNSEL.

 Prior to the Hearing, Counsel shall Meet & Confer as directed below. If Counsel have not resolved this Discovery dispute consistent with the Court’s comments, they should expect to Meet & Confer further at the time of Hearing. (See Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 1431, at 1434, noting that “…civil discovery [should] be essentially self-executing…”.)

 The issue raised here on the pending Motion is whether Discovery of relevant documents about other allegedly similar accidents is precluded by overriding privacy rights of the other accident victims.

 This is a products liability case arising from Plaintiff Sokenya Singletary’s injury when riding a go-kart at K1 Speed’s race track in South San Francisco in early November 2015. Plaintiff brings negligence and products liability claims against the distributors and manufacturers of the karts.  Originally a named Defendant, K1 Speed, Inc. was later dismissed from the case, and is now a non-party witness served with a subpoena calling for production of documents –- incident reports, photos, and videos – as to other allegedly similar accidents at other go-kart racetracks around the U.S. between January 2012 and October 2017.

 K1 Speed, Inc. brings this Motion To Quash, asserting privacy rights of the other purported accident victims at the other gocart raceways, operated under the K1 Speed name, that are listed in the subpoena. Plaintiff Singletary opposes the Motion, contending the identity and contact information of the other alleged accident victims is relevant to the subject matter of this action.

 Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks all documents in K1 Speed’s possession relating to prior kart accidents (“kart overrides”), including without limitation incident reports, photos and videos, and the names and contact information of the persons involved in the prior accidents. Plaintiff contends that consistent with the generally broad scope of discovery, or even under the more strict “direct relevance” standard, the subpoena legitimately seeks evidence of other, similar accidents to help prove alleged product defect(s), and to locate potential trial witnesses.

 Given the stated privacy concerns, the Court finds that the potentially affected third parties should be given notice and an opportunity to object before any responsive documents are produced. See, generally, Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 367; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup.Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658, Life Technologies Corp. v. Sup.Ct.) (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 655.

 The moving and opposing papers make clear that the subpoena is susceptible to being narrowed by agreement. The parties’ Counsel are Ordered to further meet and confer with an eye to narrowing the scope of the subpoena, as Plaintiff’s counsel has already offered to do. Counsel shall also meet and confer on a form of protective order limiting the use of/access to/disclosure of any documents produced in response to the subpoena.

 The attorneys shall further attempt to agree on the form of a letter for K1 Speed to send to the potentially affected third parties. Counsel shall discuss and agree on the content of the letter, which should provide notice that Plaintiff in this lawsuit is seeking production of the following categories of documents: (1) the third parties’ names and their contact information, (2) accident reports, (3) photos and videos of the prior accident, and (4) any other documents relating to the prior accident. The letter should provide the third party the opportunity to object to the production of any or all of the above categories of documents, and to return the objection by a date certain. If no objection is received, the requested documents as to that third party shall be discoverable. If an objection is received, the documents objected to shall not be discoverable absent a further Court order.

 Undoubtedly, this Order does not address every aspect of the present dispute regarding the subpoena. The parties’ are expected to meet and confer in good faith and resolve all remaining issues pertaining to the subpoena,