Case Number: BC503283 Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

JOHN ALVAREZ,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

DANIEL BRAMBILA, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

CASE NO: BC503283

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH IN PART AND DENYING MOTION TO QUASH IN PART

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #25
June 25, 2014

Defendant, Carmen Brambila’s Motion to Quash is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. The motion to quash is denied as to items 1 and 3 in the deposition subpoena and is otherwise denied.

1. Background Facts
Plaintiff, John Alvarez filed this action against Defendants, Daniel and Carmen Brambila for damages arising out of a dog bite incident.

2. Deposition Subpoena
On 3/17/14, Plaintiff propounded a deposition subpoena for production of business records on Defendants’ bank, Bank of America. The subpoena seeks production of the following categories of documents:
1. Any and all application(s) for line(s) of credit involving Daniel Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
2. Any and all application(s) for line(s) of credit involving Carmen Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present.
3. Any and all “1003 Forms or Applications” involving Daniel Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June I, 2007 to the present.
4. Any and all “1003 Forms or Applications” involving Carmen Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present.
5. Any and all “Verification(s) of Income” involving Daniel Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1.2007 to the present.
6. Any and all “Verification(s) of Income” involving Carmen Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
7. Any and all “Verification(s) of Deposit(s)” involving Daniel Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June I, 2007 to the present.
8. Any and all “Verification(s) of Deposit(s)” involving Carmen Dram bila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to thc present.
9. Any and all appraisals pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
10. Any and alt closing statement(s) pertaining to the property Located at/near 5115 Meridian Street. Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
11. Any and all “Verification(s) of Employment” involving Daniel Brambila pertaining to the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present.
12. Any and all “Verification(s) of Employment” involving Carmen Brambila pertaining to the property located ac/near 5115 Meridian Street. 1,os Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present.
13. Any and all documents and notes pertaining to underwriting and evaluation of the line of credit for the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June I, 200710 the present.
14, Any and all disbursement checks in connection with line(s) of credit for the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present
15. Any and all “Statement(s) of Information” for the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
16. Any and all “Title Policy/(s) (Preliminary and Final)” for the property located at/near 5115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1,2007 to the present.
17. Any and all “Closing Escrow Statements” in connection with line(s) of credit for the property located at/near 5 115 Meridian Street, Los Angeles, CA 90042 from June 1, 2007 to the present.

3. Motion to Quash
Defendant, Carmen Brambila moves to quash the deposition subpoena, contending it violates her right to privacy and the need for the financial information does not overcome her right to privacy.

a. Meet and Confer
Defendant mailed a meet and confer letter to Plaintiffs’ Counsel on 4/10/14. The meet and confer letter included formal objections to the demands. On 4/17/14, Defendant filed this motion to quash. Plaintiffs argue the motion should be denied and/or Defendant should be sanctioned for failure to engage in the meet and confer process in good faith.

A party is obligated to file and serve a motion to quash at least five days prior to the date set for production of documents. CCP §§1985.3(g); 1985.6(f). The date for production was 4/25/14. Notably, Plaintiffs did not respond to the meet and confer letter until 4/16/14, the day before Defendant filed the motion. The Court finds the motion was filed in good faith considering the time for filing of the motion was fast coming to a close.

b. Procedural Defects in Papers
Defendant was required to file a separate statement with her moving papers. See CRC 3.1345(a)(5). Additionally, Plaintiffs were required to tab their exhibits. CRC 3.1110(f). The Court has considered the motion on its merits despite these defects, but orders the parties to comply with all Rules of Court in the future in connection with this action.

c. Items 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14
Plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw items 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 from the subpoena. The motion to quash those items is therefore granted.

d. Items 1 and 3
These items relate solely to Defendant, Daniel Brambila’s financial records. Daniel has not filed a motion to quash. Only Carmen has filed a motion to quash. Carmen lacks standing to move to quash records that solely affect Daniel. The motion to quash these records is therefore denied.

e. Items 2, 4, 8
These items solely relate to Defendant, Carmen Brambila’s financial records. Carmen adequately establishes that she has a right to privacy in her financial records. A right of privacy exists as to a party’s confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation. Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (1979) 99 CA3d 543, 550. Confidential financial information given to a bank by a customer is protected by the right to privacy: “(T)here is a right to privacy in confidential customer information whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.” Fortunato v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 114 CA4th 475, 480.

In cases involving the right to privacy, the court must “carefully balance” the interests involved: i.e., the claimed right of privacy versus the public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup.Ct. (1975) 15 C3d 652, 657.

Plaintiff argues the documents are necessary to this litigation because Carmen admits to owning the subject property where the dog resides, but Daniel (Carmen’s son) claims he has no ownership interest in the property. Plaintiff contends the documents sought are necessary to establish that Daniel has an ownership interest in the property where the dog resides.

As noted above, items 2, 4, and 8 solely concern Carmen’s documents on file with Bank of America. It is not clear how documents that only concern Carmen could have bearing on whether Daniel has an ownership interest in the subject property. The motion to quash those records is therefore granted.

f. Items 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17
The remaining items do not concern Carmen or Daniel individually, but instead concern the subject property itself. They include documents relating to appraisals of the property, closing statements relating to the property, documents relating to a line of credit on the property, “Statements of Information” relating to the property, Title Policies for the property, and Closing Escrow Statements for the property.

Notably, Plaintiffs have agreed that any financial information can be redacted from the documents. Plaintiffs solely seek the portion of the documents that shows whether Carmen, Daniel, or both is listed as an owner on the subject property.

Carmen cites no authority for the position that the mere fact of ownership of a property is subject to a right of privacy. It does, however, seem that ownership of property is similar to financial information, which is subject to the right of privacy. The Court is concerned about the tangential nature between what Plaintiffs seek to prove and their method for seeking to do so – Plaintiffs seek to prove that Daniel owned the DOG, and they seek to do so by proving that he has joint ownership in the HOUSE in which the dog resides. The Court will hear argument on this issue at the time of the hearing, but is inclined to grant the motion to quash, as Plaintiffs did not meet their heightened burden to show that the need for the subject information outweighs the right to privacy.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court