Case Number: 18STCV02911 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: 28

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff Lavell Jones (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Target Corporation, Target, Target Brands, Inc., Penske Corporation, and Christopher Fitzge Thompson. The complaint alleges motor vehicle negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment, hiring, undertaking, retention, supervision, and training. The complaint is brought in relation to an automobile collision that occurred on November 18, 2017.

On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash a deposition subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.

Trial is set for April 28, 2020.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Plaintiff asks the Court to quash a deposition subpoena Defendant Target Corporation (“Opposing Defendant”) issued to Plaintiff’s previous employer, a base in the United States Navy.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to impose $4,221.65 in monetary sanctions against Opposing Defendant and its counsel of record for bringing this motion.

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.)

“[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.)

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).)

DISCUSSION

On December 16, 2019, Opposing Defendant issued a subpoena to a naval base in the United States Navy. (UMF No. 2, Exh. A.) The Court finds this subpoena is improper because it violates the United States’ government’s sovereign immunity.

Federal law is clear that a subpoena issued to a non-party federal government agency is unenforceable in a state court due to federal sovereign immunity (See In re Elko County Grand Jury (1997) 109 F.3d 554, 556.) Plaintiff has standing to challenge this subpoena because the California Code of Civil Procedure specifically enables a Plaintiff to challenge subpoenas issued to non-parties. (See Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3, subd. (g), 1985.6, subd. (f).)

The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s arguments regarding whether the scope of the documents requested in the subpoena is overbroad because the Court finds the subpoena is unenforceable by this Court in its entirety.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is unawardable in the Court’s discretion. As Defendant noted in the opposing papers, Plaintiff did not submit authority showing the subpoena is unenforceable by this Court. Further, Plaintiff did not provide such authority in reply. Rather, the Court had to expend its judicial resources in finding Plaintiff’s position was meritorious. As such, sanctions are inappropriately imposed against Defendant and its counsel of record.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.