Case Number: 8. BC506467    Hearing Date: August 22, 2014    Dept: B

8. BC506467
ANNA ABGARYAN v MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA INC.
Motion for Order compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Defendant’s
request for production, number 23
Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants, Michelin and General Motors, are liable in products liability and negligence for the wrongful death of Artur Melkonyan in a motor vehicle accident caused by defective tires.

1. Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to serve further responses to Request to
Produce

This hearing concerns the motion of Defendant, General Motors, for a discovery order compelling the Plaintiff, Sureh Nazaryan, to serve a further response to request for production, number 23. The moving parties seek relief under CCP section 2031.310.

CCP section 2031.310(b)(1) requires the motion to set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand for production. In law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations. Calcor Space Facility v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 224 (rejecting facts supporting the production of documents that were in a separate statement because the document was not verified and did not constitute evidence). In Calcor, the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate issue directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling the defendant to produce records because the plaintiff had failed to provide specific facts showing good cause for their production.
The same problem exists here. Request for production 23 seeks all emails reflecting invoices for jobs in which Sureh Nazaryan used the motor vehicle to travel to a work site. The declaration of the Defendant’s attorney, Anthony Thomas, lacks any specific facts showing good cause for the inspection of any of these emails. Mr. Thomas does not discuss request for production 23 or explain the need for the invoices in the emails. Instead, Mr. Thomas discusses the underlying facts of the case and deposition testimony that the motor vehicle was used to travel to work sites in Northern California.

It appears that the Defendant drafted request for production 23 to gather information on the use of the motor vehicle to support a defense that the tires failed due to wear and tear and not to a defect. The Defendant has agreed to limit the request for production to the invoices reflecting travel to work sites in the 90 days prior to the accident.
The Defendant should be able to obtain information on the use of the motor vehicle to support a defense that the tires failed due to wear and tear. If the motor vehicle was used to travel to work sites, then the Defendant should be able to obtain information on the mileage driven. This would involve the addresses on the invoices because this is necessary to determine the amount of miles driven to and from the worksite.
The Plaintiff objects that the information is protected by the right to privacy. The invoices reflect work done to install household light fixtures for customers. The Plaintiff offers no legal authority holding that such invoices reflecting the installation of household light fixtures contain sensitive information or that they are protected by the right to privacy. Further, if it is necessary to protect the privacy of persons who desire to keep confidential their purchases of household lights, then the parties could resolve this dispute by redacting the names of the individuals so that the invoices only identify the addresses so that the mileage can be determined. Or, the parties could enter into a protective order that would permit the use of these invoices solely for this litigation in order to determine the mileage to and from the worksites.

Accordingly, at the hearing, the Court will consider attempting to meet and confer with the parties to resolve this dispute. Since the Defendant is entitled to obtain information on the motor vehicle’s use, the Plaintiff should provide the addresses in the invoices so that the Defendant can calculate the mileage to and from the worksites.

2. Application for Pro Hac Vice Appearance

The case was transferred to this Department on June 18, 2014 after Department One found that the case is not proper to be heard in the Personal Injury Courts. At a non-appearance case review on July 10, 2014, the Court set the pending motion for August 21, 2014. By Stipulation, the application was continued to August 22, 2014

This hearing concerns the Defendant’s application for an order allowing two applicants, Giles Schanen and A. Marvin Quattlebaum, to appear pro hac vice on its behalf.
An initial issue is that the Defendant has not paid the first appearance fee or the fee required for its applicants to seek an order granting leave to appear pro hac vice. Under Government Code section 70617(e)(1), the fee is $500 per application. Since there are two applicants, i.e., Giles Schanen and A. Marvin Quattlebaum, the fees are $1,000. Further, Government Code section 70617(e)(2) states that an attorney whose application to appear as counsel pro hac vice must pay an annual renewal fee of $500 on or before the anniversary of the date on which the application was granted. The Court noted that the Defendant had failed to make these payments on July 10, 2014 and ordered that they be paid on or before the August 21, 2014 hearing.
Accordingly, the Court will inquire at the hearing to determine whether the Defendants have paid the required fees. If the Defendants have not, then the hearing shall be continued so that the Defendants have the opportunity to pay the required fees.

If the Defendants have paid the required fees, then the following analysis applies.

Giles Schanen and A. Marvin Quattlebaum practice law in the state of South Carolina. CRC rule 9.40 requires attorneys requesting permission to appear pro hac vice to include the following in their verified application:

1) proof of service on all parties that have appeared and on the State Bar of California;
2) the applicant’s residence and office address;
3) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;
4) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts;
5) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;
6) the title of court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted;
7) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record; and
8) payment of $50 to the State Bar of California.

A review of the verified applications of Giles Schanen and A. Marvin Quattlebaum reveals that they complied with all of these requirements and that the $100 fee has been paid to the State Bar.
Accordingly, if all other fees have been paid, the Court will grant the applications.