Case Number: BC652562 Hearing Date: April 04, 2018 Dept: 97

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 97

Tiana Renee Williams,

Plaintiff,

v.

Rafael Vargas, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC652562

Hearing Date: April 4, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

plaintiff’s MOTIONS TO QUASH Defendants’ DEPOSITION SUBPOENAs FOR PRODUCTION OF Employment and InsurAnce Records

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff Tiana Renee Williams (“Plaintiff”) alleges that she was injured as a result of a collision between her vehicle and a vehicle operated by Defendant Rafael Vargas, who was at the time acting in the scope of his employment with Defendant Plumbing System Est, Inc. The complaint, filed March 9, 2017, alleges causes of action for: (1) negligence; (2) respondeat superior; and (3) negligent entrustment.

Plaintiff moves to quash or limit Defendants’ subpoenas for production of business records to: (1) 21st Century Insurance Company, for Plaintiff’s insurance records; and (2) Cedars-Sinai Medical Center-Human Resources, and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center-Payroll Records (“Cedars-Sinai”). Defendants oppose.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, the court may, upon motion reasonably made, 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. (CCP §1987.1(a).)

DISCUSSION

Insurance Records

On November 20, 2017, Defendants issued a subpoena for records from non-party 21st Century Insurance, who was Plaintiff’s insurer at the time of the incident. The subpoena seeks “[a]ny and all documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s insurance and claim file of Tiana Renee Williams, including but not limited to, all payments, policy information, listing of providers, correspondence, all log notes, declaration of coverage medical records, property damages, repair estimates and repairs, color photographs pertaining to Tiana Renee Williams. . . from any and all dates. All documents relating to any accident involving Tiana Williams 2013 Chrysler 200 under policy no 21982020, including all photos, repair estimates, med pay payments [sic] issued.” (Pl. Mtn. to Quash: Insurance Records, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff objected to Defendants’ subpoena on November 29, 2017, on the grounds that the documents requested are protected by confidentiality, privacy, and attorney-client privilege pursuant to Soltani-Rastegar v. Superior Court (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424, 427.

Plaintiff argues that the subpoena is overbroad and violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy because Defendants request all insurance records regardless of date or relation to the incident in this case. Further, Plaintiff contends that some of the records requested may be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and should not be produced in response to the subpoena pursuant to Soltani-Rastegar.

In Soltani-Rastegar, the court found that the defendants’ written statements and notes taken by the insurance company’s claims adjuster (which were later delivered to counsel) were made in confidence for the sole purpose of defending the defendants against claims brought by those in the accident. Thus, the court held that a report or other communication made by an insured to his liability insurance company, concerning an event which may be made the basis of a claim against him covered by the policy, is a privileged communication if the policy requires the company to defend him through its attorney, and the communication is intended for the information or assistance of the attorney in so defending him. (Soltani-Rastegar, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at 427.) This is the case even if litigation is only a threat on the horizon, and if attorneys have not yet been selected. (Id. at 428.)

In opposition, Defendants contend that: (1) the subpoena is proper; (2) Plaintiff waived her privilege claim; and (3) good cause exists to disclose the information. Defendants do not provide any authority on the issue of attorney-client privilege or whether all documents sought are discoverable. Defendants do argue that insurance records prior to the incident giving rise to this case are relevant because Plaintiff testified in her deposition that she was involved in a prior accident with the same vehicle as the one in this case.

The Court finds that the documents sought are relevant to the action as Defendants seek Plaintiff’s insurance information for a prior accident, which may provide relevant information about previous injuries or property damage that may not be attributable to Defendants. However, at this time, the subpoena is overbroad as to the time frame requested and on grounds it may seek privileged information.

Accordingly, the subpoena is modified to limit the disclosure of records to the following time period: from five years prior to the accident giving rise to this case to the present. Additionally, the subpoena is modified such that any documents that are deemed protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine should be recorded in a privilege log for Defendants’ review, which must be accompanied by a declaration from a representative of the insurance company that the documents, records, notations, etc. were made at the direction of counsel and for the sole purpose of defending against claims or in preparation for litigation.

Employment Records

On November 20, 2017, Defendants served deposition subpoenas for production of employment records on Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, seeking Plaintiff’s personnel and employment records. The subpoenas seek “[a]ny and all employment records, including but not limited to earnings, profits, commissions, bonuses, business income, salary, payroll, attendance, health records, workers’ compensation claims, medical information, employment applications, job performance evaluations, date of hire, date and reason for termination, personnel records, and records related to employment or employee benefits, including any and all W2’s and/or 1099’s regarding Tiana Renee William, born on November 29, 1986, with SS# UNK, from any and all dates.” (Pl. Mtn. to Quash: Employment Records, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff argues that the subpoenas are overboard, oppressive, and violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Plaintiff requests that the subpoenas be quashed, or in the alternative, that the Court limit the discoverable materials to documents “such as pay stubs and only records related to any injury or accident involving the same body parts of Plaintiff’s body that were injured in the accident dated 09/28/2015.” (Pl. Motion to Quash Employment Records, at pg. 8.)

Defendants argue in response that the subpoena is proper and that the employment records are relevant because Plaintiff has placed her loss of wages and medical history in issue. Defendants state that the employment records related to Plaintiff’s compensation are relevant because these records will support or undermine Plaintiff’s claims for loss of time at work and claims that she had to reduce her hours or change the work performed because of her injury. Further, Defendants contend that records related to workers’ compensation claims are necessary because Plaintiff made a claim for workers’ compensation in early 2015 for an injury to her neck and left shoulder. Plaintiff also claims that the accident giving rise to this case aggravated her prior injury and that the accident in this case caused injury and pain to her neck, back, and left shoulder. (Def. Opp. to Mtn. to Quash: Employment Records, at pg. 5.)

The Court finds that the information Defendants seek is relevant as Plaintiff is claiming loss of earnings and exacerbation of the injury claimed under workers’ compensation. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the deposition subpoena is broad as to scope with regard to the type of records it seeks. However, the Court notes that Plaintiff does not state how long she has been employed by Cedars-Sinai. Nor does she suggest the time period to which the subpoena should be limited.

Th Court narrows the subpoenas to Cedars-Sinai to require production of all records, including all electronically stored information, relating and limited to:

A. Records relating to any disability claim, workers’ compensation claim, including medical records, pertaining to any injury or medical condition concerning Plaintiff’s neck, shoulder, and arms.

B. Payroll records including salary, wages, commissions or other remuneration paid, and time sheets for the time period starting from five years prior to the accident giving rise to this case to the present.

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. The Court finds that Defendants’ actions in bringing the subpoenas or opposing this motion were made in good faith. Thus, sanctions are not merited.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motions to quash the subpoena on 21st Century Insurance Company is granted in part and denied in part. The motion the quash the subpoenas on Cedars-Sinai Medical Center-Human resources and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center-Payroll is granted in part and denied in part. In addition, the Court modifies/limits the subpoenas in scope as stated above. The Court directs

//

//

compliance with the subpoenas with the limitations discussed above.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions on both motions is denied.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this order.

DATED: April 4, 2018 ___________________________

Elaine Lu

Judge of the Superior Court