Case Name: Ari Azhir v. Shahla Chehrazi Raffle, et al.
Case No.: 2015-1-CV-286532

Before the Court are four motions brought by Defendants: Motion to Quash (Line 7); Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Line 8); Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Plaintiff (Line 9); and Motion for Protective Order (Line 10). Lines 8, 9 and 10 were continued from September 13, 2016 to allow both sides to be heard on the court’s tentative rulings.
All of these motions – except Line 7 – are opposed by Plaintiff, whose counsel has submitted an identical declaration in opposition to each motion.
The Court’s proposed rulings on each motion are set forth below.

Motion to Quash

No Opposition. Motion to Quash Subpoenas is GRANTED. Monetary sanctions are awarded in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff and her counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,312.50 (3.5 hours at $375), under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2(a).

Motion to Seal

The motion is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion makes a sufficient showing required by California Rules of Court 2.551. As it has been shown by the moving party that the statements and information to be sealed were obtained in a relationship of confidence and privilege between Defendant Shahla Chehrazi-Raffle, her prior attorney, and current counsel for Plaintiff, and as it has been further shown that this confidential information is protected by the Defendant’s constitutional rights of privacy, the Court expressly finds that:
1. There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
2. The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
3. A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
4. The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
5. No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.

Motion to Disqualify Counsel

The motion is GRANTED. Defendants have established that Plaintiff’s counsel received confidential information, both attorney-client privileged information and information protected by Defendant’s right of privacy, during the courts of Plaintiff’s counsel’s consultation with Defendant Shahla Chehrazi-Raffle and her prior counsel, Mr. Weinberg. That Plaintiff’s counsel received such confidential, privileged information is essentially undisputed. It is disputed that an attorney-client relationship existed between Defendant and counsel Levin, but that is immaterial where the receipt of the information is undisputed and clearly established by the evidence presented. Plaintiff’s counsel is disqualified where he received, and now seeks to use, confidential, privileged information – whether in his prior capacity as a consulting expert witness, attorney, or both.

Motion for Protective Order

Initially, the Court notes that neither the moving nor the opposition papers address the specific statutory bases for a motion for protective order. As the issue arose during the deposition of Defendant, and based upon the scope of relief requested, the Court will treat the motion as having been brought under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2024.420 and 2017.020. Although Defendants have not submitted a meet and confer declaration under section 2016.040, as contemplated by both of the protective order sections, the Court finds the redacted deposition transcript reflects a sufficient, good faith attempt by counsel to meet and confer and resolve the issue.
The motion is GRANTED, good cause having been shown to support a protective order, under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2024.420 and 2017.020. No discovery of any kind shall be permitted regarding the medical history and records of Defendant Shahla Chehrazi-Raffle, nor regarding any confidential and privileged information previously received by Plaintiff’s counsel – absent further order of the Court, on a showing of good cause for the pursuit of any such discovery. The Court finds that the protective order is necessary to protect Defendants from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression; and that such discovery is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The intrusiveness and irrelevance of this discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

As monetary sanctions have not been noticed or requested, none are awarded.