Case Number: BC524601    Hearing Date: July 17, 2014    Dept: A11

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

ADOLFO CORNAVACA, et al. )
) Case Number BC 524601
Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER AFTER HEARING
V )
) Date of Hearing:
MARK COLBY HORWEDEL, ) July 17, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

Plaintiffs Adolfo and Vera Cornavaca’s motions to quash deposition subpoenas for the production of Adolfo Nikolai Cornavaca’s scholastic and academic records came on for hearing on July 17, 2014. Plaintiffs Adolfo and Vera Cornavaca appeared through their counsel of record, ______________________. Defendant Mark Colby Horwedel appeared through his counsel of record, ______________________. The Court, having received and reviewed the pleadings of record and evidence submitted and having considered argument of counsel, it is hereby ORDERED:

The two motions to quash the subpoena for the production of Adolfo Nikolai Cornavaca’s scholastic and academic records are DENIED.

SO ORDERED this the _____ day of July, 2014.

______________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS,
JUDGE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTH DISTRICT

ADOLFO CORNAVACA, et al. )
) Case Number BC 524601
Plaintiffs, )
) STATEMENT OF DECISION
V )
) Date of Hearing:
MARK COLBY HORWEDEL, ) July 17, 2014
) Dept. A-11
Defendant. ) Judge Randolph A. Rogers
___________________________________)

The Court bases the Order After Hearing of this date upon the following Statement of Decision:

1. The present case arises from a fatal car accident in March of 2013. Decedent, Adolfo Nikolai Cornavaca (“Decedent”), as a pedestrian, was hit by a vehicle operated by Defendant Mark Colby Horwedel (“Defendant”), and subsequently passed away.

2. Plaintiffs Adolfo and Vera Cornavaca (“Plaintiffs”), the parents and heirs of Decedent, brought suit on October 15, 2013, asserting a cause of action for wrongful death resulting from negligence. Discovery ensued.

3. Following discovery responses indicating Decedent’s academic prowess and his career intentions, Defendant served subpoenas upon William J. Pete Knight High School and Antelope Valley College on May 14, 2014, seeking the production of Decedent’s educational records while he was a pupil.

4. Plaintiffs have filed two separate motions in response to the two subpoenas: a motion to quash the subpoena for Decedent’s high school records, and a motion to quash the subpoena for Decedent’s college records. Both were filed on June 6, 2014. Defendant filed Oppositions to both on July 3, 2014.

5. Motion to quash deposition subpoena – Code of Civil Procedure §1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary to protect a witness. Section 1987.1 provides, “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.”

6. Education Code §49076 – With respect to Decedent’s high school records, Plaintiffs contend that these records are prohibited from disclosure without consent or a judicial order pursuant to §49076. Education Code §49076 provides that a school may not permit access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order except under certain enumerated exceptions. Cal. Educ. Code §49076(a). However, §49077 of the same code provides that student information “shall be furnished in compliance with a court order or a lawfully issued subpoena.” As such, §49076 is inapplicable here, and is not a valid basis upon which to quash the subpoena.

7. Relevance – Plaintiffs contend that the subpoena in question is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and seeks irrelevant documents. Discovery is permitted into “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” CCP §2017.010. Relevant evidence is evidence “having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” Cal. Evid. Code 210.

8. Plaintiffs contend that the academic records in question are not relevant, and assert that Plaintiffs “have not made a claim for loss of future earnings.” Motion to Quash High School Records (“High School Motion”) at 3:12; Motion to Quash College Records (“College Motion”) at 3:12. It is indisputable that Decedent’s academic records are irrelevant to the causes and proportionate liability of Defendant as relates to the collision. Defendant, however, argues that Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery inquiries, stating that Decedent received various academic recognitions and intended to pursue a career in engineering, create grounds upon which the discovery in question becomes relevant in attempting to assess the viability of Plaintiffs’ claims “regarding decedent’s academic career.” Opposition at 6:22-23.

9. The Complaint includes a general, unspecified prayer for “economic damages according to proof.” Complaint at 3:20. Economic damages include lost earning capacity and past and future lost earnings. See CACI 3903C (“Past and Future Lost Earnings (Economic Damage)”); CACI 3903D (“Lost earning Capacity (Economic Damage)”). See Also BAJI 14.31 Measure of Damages (“The amount of your award to the minor should include: (1) The present cash value of earning capacity reasonably certain to be lost as a result of the accident in question, after the minor becomes 18 years of age. [This is economic damage]”). As such, absent some affirmative representation that Plaintiffs are forgoing any and all claims for earnings-related recovery, discovery into Decedent’s potential income-earning ability is made relevant pursuant to the prayer in the Complaint.

10. Privacy – Plaintiffs suggest that the records requested here impinge upon Decedent’s privacy rights. As a general matter, “the right of privacy is purely a personal one . . . , the right does not survive but dies with the person.” Flynn v. Higham (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 677, 683. In addition, the balancing of Defendant’s need versus Decedent’s privacy interests tilts decidedly in Defendants’ favor.

11. “When compelled disclosure intrudes on constitutionally protected areas, it cannot be justified solely on the ground that it may lead to relevant information. And even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a ‘careful balancing’ of the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.” Ombudsman Services of Northern California v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251. The records here sought directly reflect on Decedent’s academic history, which factors heavily in to whether or not Decedent would have been successful in pursuing the claimed career aspirations. They are relevant to the suit.

12. The right of privacy “protects the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 40 Cal.4th 360, 370 (emphasis original). This requires the court to evaluate whether “the person claiming the privacy right has a ‘legally protected privacy interest’; whether the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the particular circumstances, . . . ; and whether the invasion of privacy is serious rather than trivial.” Crab Addison, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 958, 966. Even with a showing of direct relevancy, “the balance will favor privacy for confidential information in third party . . . files unless the litigant can show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources.” Ombudsman Services, supra, 154 Cal.App.4th at 1251.

13. Having shown direct relevancy, it is incumbent upon the Defendant to demonstrate that he has a compelling need, and that the documents and information are unavailable to them from other, non-confidential sources.

14. As to the compelling need, it cannot reasonably be disputed that Defendant has such need in order to properly prepare a defense against any claim for lost earnings or wages. As Decedent has no working history, the only information that has a bearing as to the prospects of him attaining the stated career path is his academic records. Without these records, Defendant has no alternative source of information by which to even assess claims centered on Decedent’s career or potential earnings. Moreover, any copies of the demanded records would be similarly confidential, such that Defendant has no means to obtain the information from a non-confidential source. To restrict Defendant’s discovery here would severely impinge upon his ability to adequately present a defense as to an issue raise by Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

15. Accordingly, the motions to quash the subpoena for the production of Adolfo Nikolai Cornavaca’s scholastic and academic records are DENIED.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the ______ day of July, 2014.

_____________________________
RANDOLPH A. ROGERS, JUDGE