Lawzilla Additional Information: no final order was made

Case Number: 19STCV09545 Hearing Date: October 09, 2019 Dept: 4A

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposition was submitted.

BACKGROUND

On March 20, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Antonio Majoral (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Paula Miramontes and Gordon L. Alatorre (“Defendants”) alleging motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligent entrustment for an automobile collision that occurred on October 9, 2017.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena Defendants issued to the Department of Health Care Services pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for September 16, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to quash, or in the alternative, issue a protective order limiting Defendants deposition subpoenas issued to Department of Health Care Services because it is overbroad and seeks information that is irrelevant and protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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.”

“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)

In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

A motion to quash a subpoena must be accompanied with a meet and confer declaration showing a good faith and reasonable attempt at an informal resolution took place. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2016.040, 2025.410, subd. (c).)

DISCUSSION

“[P]laintiffs are ‘not obligated to sacrifice all privacy to seek redress for a specific [physical,] mental or emotional injury’; while they may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing [a] lawsuit, . . . they are entitled to retain the confidentiality of all unrelated medical or psychotherapeutic treatment they may have undergone in the past.” (Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864 (citation and footnote omitted).) However, “. . . privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Thus courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

An individual has a right to privacy in his or her insurance records. (See Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65-66.) However, “privacy interests may have to give way to [an] opponent’s right to a fair trial. Courts must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842.)

The Court initially notes that the first memorandum in support of this motion did not include the exhibits that the motion relies on. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed another memorandum that does include the exhibits that the motion relies on. This late filing does not raise questions about whether Defendants were given proper notice of the motion, because the proof of service states the memorandum filed on October 7, 2019, with the exhibits, was personally served on Defendants on September 17, 2019.

On July 30, 2019, Defendants issued a deposition subpoena on Department of Health Care Services requesting all documents in any insurance file pertaining to Plaintiff. (Dirocco Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) This request is not limited as to the subject matter of the sought-after documents, except that they must pertain to Plaintiff and be considered insurance records. This request has no temporal limitation nor any other restriction. Plaintiff has proposed that the documents be limited to dating ten years prior to the incident and only relating to parts of Plaintiff’s body that give rise to the complaint. (Motion, p. 9:9-9:14.) Plaintiff states that he has provided this list of body parts in response to Form Interrogatory number 6.2, but does not include this response with the motion and does not otherwise provide this list of body parts. Defendants filed no opposition to the motion. Nor have they provided any logical limitations on the subpoena. As such, the deposition subpoena is properly quashed.

Plaintiff’s request for $2,750 in sanctions consists of 7 hours in preparing the motion, 1 hour in reviewing an opposition, 2 hours in preparing a reply, and 1 hour in appearing at the hearing at a rate of $250 an hour. (Dirocco Decl., ¶¶ 11-12.) This is an unreasonable amount because the motion is relatively simple and there was no opposition or reply filed. Rather, the Court finds $750 ($250/hr. x 3 hrs.) to be a reasonable amount of sanctions to be imposed on Defendants and their counsel of record, jointly and severally, for their abuse of the discovery process.

The motion is therefore GRANTED.

The deposition subpoena Defendants issued on Department of Health Care Services on July 30, 2019 is QUASHED.

Defendants and their counsel of record are ordered to pay Plaintiff $750, jointly and severally, within 30 days of this ruling.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.