Case Number: SC120709 Hearing Date: May 02, 2014 Dept: M

Tentative Ruling
Zale Design Studio v. Leevan
SC120709

Plaintiff provided interior design services and materials to Defendant/Cross-defendant Leevan. After a dispute arose, Plaintiff filed this collection action against Leevan. Leevan cross-complained, alleging, inter alia, overbilling by Plaintiff. Leevan served a third party business records subpoena on Plaintiff’s bookkeeper, Charlotte Kostecki. Leevan has been unable to obtain Kostecki’s compliance with the subpoena, and now seeks an order against her in that regard. The Court will grant the unopposed motion.

GRANTED:

Having read and considered the moving papers, the court tentatively grants the Defendant’s motion pursuant to CCP 1987.1, and rules as follows:

1. CCP 1987.1: When 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 the party, the witness, or any consumer described in Section 1985.3, 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 such terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders;
2. Even highly relevant, non-privileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s “inalienable right of privacy” provided by the California Constitution. Britt v Superior Court (1978) 20 C 3d 844, 855-856;
3. The Standard of Review for the court is to “carefully balance” the interests of the parties involved, i.e., the claimed right of privacy versus the public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 C 3d 652, 657;
4. The more sensitive the information, the greater the need for discovery must be shown. Olympic Club v. Superior Court (1991) 229 CA 3d 358, 363;
5. However, the case of Morales v Superior Court (1979) 99 CA 3d 283, holds that even very personal and confidential matters may have to be disclosed if essential to a fair determination of the lawsuit: “…what is proper (for discovery inquiry) in a given case depends upon the facts of the case….¿ (Morales at page 288;
6. The court finds that the defendant’s request is reasonable based upon the dispute;
7. No opposition has been filed;
8. Within 5 calendar days of personal service on the deponent of the Court’s order on the instant motion, Kostecki is to produce those documents requested in the subject business records subpoena;
9. Kostecki is sanctioned in the total amount of $1660.00, to be paid at Leevan’s counsel’s office within thirty days of service of this order. Request for imposition of contempt sanctions” is denied without prejudice to an application seeking an OSC re Contempt in the event that Kostecki fails to produce the subpoenaed business records in violation of the order issued today; and
10. Leevan shall give notice of today’s rulings and timely file proof of service thereof.