Case Number: BC643554 Hearing Date: March 21, 2018 Dept: 32

pablo ramirez, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Nissan Motor Co., LTD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC643554

[Consolidated with BC660808]

Hearing Date: March 21, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

Motion to Quash Subpoena for production of records from infinity insurance

BACKGROUND

BC643554 is a products liability and negligence action. Plaintiff Pablo Ramirez (“Ramirez”) suffered injuries in a car accident on August 2, 2016 while driving a 2007 Infiniti G35 (“Infiniti Vehicle”). Ramirez alleges that the Infiniti Vehicle’s safety features failed to engage during the accident. Ramirez asserts claims against the Infiniti Vehicle’s manufacturer (“Nissan”), and the driver of the other vehicle in the accident.

BC660808 is brought by Plaintiffs Concepcian C. Torres (“Torres”), Isabel Gutierrez (“Gutierrez”), and Lynerry Henning (“Henning”) (collectively, “Torres, et al.”). Defendant Rosa Ferrer (“Ferrer”) is alleged to be the driver of the 1989 Ford Crown Victoria (“Ford Vehicle”) that collided with Ramirez’s Infiniti Vehicle. Torres, et al. were passengers in the Ford Vehicle. Torres, et al. assert claims against Ford, Ramirez, Ferrer, and the owner of the Ford Vehicle, Jose Romero.

DISCUSSION

Ramirez moves to quash the subpoena issued by Torres on Infinity Insurance Company. The subpoena seeks Ramirez’s insurance records and claims files from Infinity Insurance. Before the actions were consolidated, Ramirez sought to quash a similar subpoena in BC643554. The Court denied that motion, finding that Ramirez’s insurance records were directly relevant. For this same reason, the instant motion is denied.

While Plaintiff has a Constitutional privilege to privacy, this privilege is not absolute. “[T]he California Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable rights, including the right to privacy. . . . Accordingly, a litigant may invoke the constitutional right to privacy as justification for refusing to answer questions that unreasonably intrude on that right. The right to privacy, however, is not absolute. In appropriate circumstances, this right must be balanced against other important interests. ‘On occasion [a party’s] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] 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.’” (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1198–99 [citations omitted].) “The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to the claim or defense.” (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665.) Here, given that Ramirez’s insurance records have already been produced, Ramirez’s privacy concerns are no longer an issue. Even if those records had not been produced, Ramirez’s insurance records are directly relevant to this action.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to quash is DENIED. The scope of the subpoena is limited to documents pertaining to the August 2, 2016 accident, and any subsequent accidents or claims, including October 29, 2016.

pablo
ramirez, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Nissan
Motor Co., LTD, et
al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC643554

Hearing Date: March 21, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to Quash deposition subpoena for production of business records from t-mobile

BACKGROUND

This is a products liability and negligence action. Plaintiff Pablo Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) suffered injuries in a car accident on August 2, 2016 while driving a 2007 Infinity G35 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff alleges that the Subject Vehicle’s safety features failed to engage during the accident. Plaintiff asserts claims against the Subject vehicle’s manufacturers (“Nissan”), and the driver of the other vehicle in the accident.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena served by Nissan on T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”). The subpoena seeks production of Plaintiff’s cell phone records. Plaintiff moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that it violates his privacy rights.

“[T]he California Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable rights, including the right to privacy. . . . Accordingly, a litigant may invoke the constitutional right to privacy as justification for refusing to answer questions that unreasonably intrude on that right. The right to privacy, however, is not absolute. In appropriate circumstances, this right must be balanced against other important interests. ‘On occasion [a party’s] privacy interests may have to give way to [the] 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.’” (John B. v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1198–99 [citations omitted].) “The proponent of discovery of constitutionally protected material has the burden of making a threshold showing that the evidence sought is ‘directly relevant’ to the claim or defense.” (Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal. App. 4th 661, 665.)

Here, Nissan shows that Plaintiff’s cell phone records are directly relevant to its defense in this action. Part of Nissan’s defense is that Plaintiff was distracted by a cell phone call at the time of the accident. Plaintiff’s cell phone records are obviously relevant and material to Nissan’s defense.

Based on the forgoing, the motion to quash is DENIED.