Case Number: BC691872 Hearing Date: June 27, 2018 Dept: 2

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Documents from Plaintiff’s Insurance Carrier, or in the Alternative, for a Protective Order Limiting the Production of Plaintiff’s Insurance File, filed on5/17/18, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff moves to strike Defendant’s untimely opposition. The court’s file does not reflect that Defendant filed an opposition. No opposition has been considered. Any opposition was required to be filed nine court days before the hearing, in this case, by June 14, 2018. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 1005(b). Regardless, Plaintiff has established prejudice by the late service of the opposition as Plaintiff could not file a substantive reply. See Plaintiff’s Request to Strike 3:10-11. Therefore, any late-filed opposition is stricken. Cal Code Civil Procedure § 436.

The court can quash the subpoenas or issue a protective order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 1987.1

The Insurance Information and Privacy Act establishes a regulatory mechanism for the collection, use, and disclosure of information gathered in connection with insurance transactions. Ins. Code, § 791

Information compiled by an insurance company is protected from disclosure as it is personal “or perhaps legally privileged as work product.” The act strictly limits dissemination of information contained in insurance files to persons other than the insured. Insurance carriers may not disclose personal or privileged information. Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 59, 65–66.

However insurance information can be disclosed in response to a court order or a valid subpoena. Ins. Code, § 791.13(h).

Where privacy rights are implicated, Defendant must show that the records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claim and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014; Harris v. Superior Court, (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665.

Even if the records are directly relevant, Defendant must show a compelling need for the discovery. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 .

The court considers certain factors in determining whether the disclosure of private information should be permitted including the purpose of the information, the effect of disclosure, the nature of the objections, and the court’s ability to make an alternative order. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 652, 658.

The first category of information sought concerns policies of insurance issued to Plaintiff including, Policy Number NEN3464943. Defendant agreed to limit this request to policies in force on 8/29/16, the date of the accident. Motion, Exhibit D.

Defendant’s meet and confer response to Plaintiff on 5/14/18, contends the information is “relevant and discoverable.” Motion, Exhibit D. However, the general scope of discovery articulated in Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2017.010 is not the standard. As stated above, Defendant must show direct relevance and compelling need.

Plaintiff’s coverage limits and other policy information is irrelevant, as there is no evidence that Defendant is making a claim against Plaintiff. The only Cross-Complaint filed in this action is by Shalea Berry against other Defendants.

The second category requests all documents referring or relating to claim CL#D050260CA16. Defendant claims that once a Plaintiff files suit, Defendant is entitled to Plaintiff’s liability insurance information. Motion, Ex. D, page 2, first paragraph.

Defendant cites Griffith which underscored the claimants’ right to the insurance information of the adverse party, since once a lawsuit is filed, the claimant (the Plaintiff) has demonstrated a serious claim is being asserted against the insured. Griffith at 69–70.

The right to discovery of the insurance information of the potentially liable party, such as Defendant, is codified in Cal Code Civil Procedure § 2017.210. Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.210. Griffith does not address why the Defendants would be entitled to Plaintiff’s insurance information, since Plaintiff is the one seeking to establish liability against Defendants.

Defendants state in their letter that they are entitled to witness statements regarding the accident, any photos or estimates of Plaintiff’s vehicle, and any statements from Plaintiff and other persons who witnessed the incident. Item 2 of the subpoena is not limited to this information, or limited in any way. Defendants seek broad disclosure of documents that “reference or relate to the claim,” including notes, correspondence, journals, diaries, emails and correspondence among other things. Motion, Ex. A, Attachment 3.

The third category of information seeks all documents relating to any claims submitted by Plaintiff within the past five years. Defendants contend the information is relevant to determine if Plaintiff is claiming the same damages in this accident as others Plaintiff claimed in the past.

Speculation over what the records might contain (or even if they exist) or that some portion of the records might be relevant is not sufficient to establish direct relevance. Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1017.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.