Apple, Inc. v. Shavon Butler

Apple, Inc. v. Shavon Butler

CASE NO. 114CV263460

DATE: 10 July 2014

TIME: 9:00

LINE NUMBER: 23

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Wednesday 9 July 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 10 July 2014, the Motion for Ordering Quashing Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things at Trial and/or Hearing and Declaration as argued and submitted.

Defendants did not file formal opposition to the motion.[1]

Statement of Facts

This motion arises from the underlying lawsuit between Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Defendant and Cross-Complainant Shavon Ms. Butler (“Ms. Butler”). Ms. Butler alleged that 1) Apple purposely bought the apartment building in which Ms. Butler lived in, 2) asked Ms. Butler to move out, 3) took Ms. Butler’s music away on the music application iTunes and 4) stole 7 billion dollars from Ms. Butler’s account.

Discovery Dispute

On 21 April 2014, Third Party Extended Stay America (“Extended Stay”) and Rebecca Darnell (“Darnell”) (collectively “Subpoena Recipients”) was served a Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents. The subpoena demands that Subpoena Recipients provide Ms. Butler with a free hotel room for 90 days, Internet access, a phone, maid service, and room information within 24 hours so that she can be close to the courthouse and to have an address to receive court papers.

Discussion

Subpoena Recipients is seeking an order quashing Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents. Subpoena Recipients argued that the subpoena is both substantively and procedurally defective.

  1. I.                  Motion for Ordering Quashing Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things at Trial and/or Hearing and Declaration
    1. a.      Legal Standard

Subpoena Recipients seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. That section authorizes parties and non-party witnesses to move the court for an order quashing or modifying a subpoena duces tecum on the ground that the records sought are not within the permissible scope of discovery or that the requests are unduly burdensome. (Code Civ. Proc. [“CCP”], § 1987.1, subds. (a) & (b).)

The court may make an order quashing a subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions, as it shall declare upon reasonably made by the party. (CCP § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect against unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right to privacy. (Id.)

The party objecting to a discovery request bears the burden of explaining and justifying its objections. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)

  1. b.      Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things at Trial and/or Hearing and Declaration are unduly burdensome and procedurally defective

California Code of Civil Procedure § 1985(a) states in part that a witness may be require to “bring any books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things under the witness’s control which the witness is bound by law to produce in evidence.” A copy of an affidavit must be attached to show good cause and shall be material for the production of the matters and things described in the subpoena. (CCP § 1985(b).)

In Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 218, the court held that a subpoena under Code of Civil Procedure section 2020. “must describe the documents to be produced with reasonable particularity.” Demands, insupportable by evidence, showing at least the potential evidentiary value of the information sought are not permitted. (Id.; CCP § 2020.410(a).) The Court further noted that “both sections 2020 (dealing with inspection demands on non parties) and 2031 (dealing with inspection demands on parties) required records sought to be produced be designated “either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item.” (Id., at p. 222).

Even though the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.  Code of Procedure section 2017.010(a) provides that

“any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to 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 evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Subpoena Recipients’ counsel argued that the subpoena[2] failed to request materials or documents within the scope of discovery set forth in the code. Ms. Butler requested that Subpoena Recipients provide free hotel room for 90 days and services such as maid services, Internet and phone services. Subpoena Recipients’ counsel contends that Ms. Butler’s Subpoena is unduly burdensome, as it would cost Subpoena Recipients at least $12,600 assuming no additional damages to Subpoena Recipients’ business and property if they were to comply with the order.

Hence, the Court “must carefully weigh the cost, time, expense and disruption of normal business resulting form an order compelling the discovery against the probative value of the material which night be disclosed if the discovery is ordered.” (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 223.) In addition, Subpoena Recipients’ counsel noted the goods and services sought by Ms. Butler are not relevant to the subject matter of the underlying case and will not provide the Court with any information useful to the underlying case. The goods and services sought will not shed light on the truth or falsity of the allegations. As noted in Subpoena Recipients’ Motion to Quash, Ms. Butler argued that Subpoena Recipients should provide her free residence for her court case is not material to the evidence sought.

Therefore, Subpoena Recipients’ Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things at Trial and/or Hearing and Declaration is GRANTED.

 

 

Order

The Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things at Trial and/or Hearing and Declaration is GRANTED.



[1] “The failure to file a written opposition or to appear at a hearing or the voluntary provision of discovery shall not be deemed an admission that the motion was proper or that sanctions should be awarded.”  Rule of Court 3.1348(b).

[2] Although not required by either the statute or by the Rule of Court when no response has been provided to the request for discovery, it is a better practice to include copies of the subpoena and other important documents in the moving papers to show the nature of the papers served. See Rule of Court 3.1345(a)(5), (b), (c). See also Rules of Court 3.1112(b), 3.1113 (b), (k) or in a proper request for judicial notice. Rule of Court 3.1113 (l).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *