Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subpoena when necessary.
“If 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...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.” Code of Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a); Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Assoc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.
The following persons may make a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a):
Code of Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(b).
There is no requirement that the motion to quash a subpoena contain a meet and confer declaration. Code of Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.
“[A] civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad.” Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 541. Discovery “may be obtain[ed]...regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action...if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 541. “[I]nformation is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating a settlement.” Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546. Discovery is liberalized “in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.” Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 541. Where a nonparty is involved, discovery must not be unduly burdensome nor merely a fishing expedition. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 225.
Although relevance is typically construed liberally (see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 169), the standard is more stringent when a party is attempting to discover documents which are constitutionally protected by the right to privacy. Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855. “[E]ven when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed.... [I]f an intrusion on the right of privacy is deemed necessary under the circumstances of a particular case, any such intrusion should be the minimum intrusion necessary to achieve its objective...[meaning] the least intrusive means to satisfy the interest. Mere convenience of means or cost will not satisfy that test for that would make expediency and not the compelling interest the overriding value.” Lantz v. Super. Ct. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1839, 1854-1855. “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. Super. Ct. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665; Davis v. Super. Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.
In other words, “the right to discovery is not absolute, particularly where issues of privacy are involved.” Puerto v. Super. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250. “Information that is not protected by statutory privilege may nonetheless be shielded from discovery, despite its relevance, where its disclosure would invade an individual's right of privacy.” Hooser v. Super. Ct. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1003–04.
“[T]he California Constitution recognizes a number of inalienable rights, including the right to privacy.” John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1198–99. “It protects against the unwarranted, compelled disclosure of various private or sensitive information regarding one's personal life, including his or her financial affairs, political affiliations, medical history, sexual relationships, and confidential personnel information.” Hooser v. Super. Ct. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1003–04. This right “protects an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy against a serious invasion.” Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 171. “[A] litigant may invoke the constitutional right to privacy as justification for refusing to answer questions that unreasonably intrude on that right.” John B. v. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1198–99. As such, even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person’s inalienable right to privacy. Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855–56.
“The right to privacy, however, is not absolute.” Grafilo v. Wolfsohn (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1024, 1034. “The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.” Williams v. Super. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 552.
“In appropriate circumstances, this right [to privacy] 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. Super. Ct. (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 1177, 1198–99; Britt v. Super. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855–56. “The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. Based on an application of these factors, the more sensitive the nature of the personal information that is sought to be discovered, the more substantial the showing of the need for the discovery that will be required before disclosure will be permitted.” Hooser v. Super. Ct. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO QUASH: PLAINTIFF’S SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS On March 7, 2019, plaintiff Syd Johnson, a minor by and through her guard ad litem Luisa Johnson (“Plaintiff”), filed this action against defendant South Pasadena Unif...
...relating to Investigation Report #18-2323, which involved the incident at issue in this litigation. This notice scheduled Burges’s deposition for January 21, 2020. However, it appears that the actual subpoena included twelve requests for documents, including one that sought all records pertaining to “any call, disturbance or activity at South Pasadena Middle School” from 2015 to the present and other equal...
Feb 20, 2020
...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 b...
...service issue as he had adequate time to give notice of the motion to quash. Defendant asserts that moreover, Plaintiff did not adequately meet and confer in good faith to figure out if the scope of the subpoenas could be paired down to appease his concerns. Defendant contends that instead, Plaintiff demanded that the subpoenas be withdrawn altogether. Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to engage in th...
Feb 20, 2020
...Orders (4) Motion to Quash Subpoena (5) Motion to Quash Subpoena (6) Amended Pet to Remove Angelina Dettamanti as Trustee Contested matters; appearance required. Note: The most recently filed Motion to Quash filed by Andrea Dettamonti on 2/13/20 is set for 3/19/20.
Feb 20, 2020
Nature of Proceedings: (1) Ex Parte Hearing re Lack of Portable Water (2) Motion to Disqualify Counsel (3) Motion to Vacate Orders (4) Motion to Quash Subpoena (5) Motion to Quash Subpoena (6) Amended Pet to Remove Angelina Dettamanti as Trustee
Feb 20, 2020
Nature of Proceedings: (1) Ex Parte Hearing re Lack of Portable Water (2) Motion to Disqualify Counsel (3) Motion to Vacate Orders (4) Motion to Quash Subpoena (5) Motion to Quash Subpoena (6) Amended Pet to Remove Angelina Dettamanti as Trustee # 18PR00334 Matter of Carrari Family Trust Est. February 28, 2002 Hearing Date: 2/20/2020 HEARINGS: (1) Dettamanti’s motion to disqualif...
...sanctions against counsel, and impose actual and punitive damages, legal fees, and court costs. (2) Dettamanti’s motion to vacate orders and dismiss (3) Motion by non-party Marcial Lopez to quash deposition subpoena for personal appearance and production, and/or for protective order, and sanctions ATTORNEYS: Mack S. Staton of Mullen & Henzell LLP for Petitioner Linda Kopcrak, as Beneficiary James C. Buttery...
Feb 20, 2020
...information regarding Linkaj, a competing company ColorTokens alleges Kuta and several of his coworkers created while they were still employed with ColorTokens. Kuta opposes the motion to compel. ColorTokens’ Motion to Compel Discovery Responses ColorTokens moves to compel several items relating to Kuta’s involvement with Linkaj, a company that would compete with ColorTokens and that ColorTokens believed Kuta an...
...presentations for Linkaj that you referenced during your July 30, 2019 deposition. Defendant ColorTokens requests further responses to all of the requests for production of documents listed above. A motion for an order compelling further responses “shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought by the inspection demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (b)(1); Kirkl...
Feb 20, 2020
Motion to Quash Subpoenas (x11) Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed. BACKGROUND On July 29, 2019, Plaintiff Nick Dang (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defen...
...Plaintiff filed a motion to quash eleven deposition subpoenas pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Trial is set for January 25, 2021. PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to quash eleven deposition subpoenas Defendant Panrosa Enterprises, Inc. issued in seeking Plaintiff’s medical, billing, and employment records. Plaintiff also asks the Court to issue $3,186.65 in monetary sa...
Feb 19, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff Sophie Galindo filed this action against Defendant Carolyn Pastor for injuries from a motor vehicle accident on August 2, 2017. On August 28, 2019, Plaintiff served a notic...
...condition – that she had recently had a stent. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff issued a subpoena for Defendant’s medical records related to her inability to sit for a deposition. Defendant moves to quash the subpoena as violating her privacy and irrelevant to the matters in dispute. Plaintiff contends that by “using her Medical Condition to justify why Defendant cannot sit for her deposition, Defendant has now pl...
Feb 19, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA On May 9, 2018, plaintiff Jennifer Lee Miller filed this action against defendants Joshalyn White, Johnesha White, and Regina Baker White (collectively, “Defendants”) for injuries sustained in a July...
...email requesting Defendants narrow the subpoena to records for five years before the accident and limited to the body parts at issue. Defendants did not agree. A court “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 orders as may ...
Feb 18, 2020
(1) Motion for Protective Order/Motion to Quash (2) Motion to Compel Tentative Ruling: (1) Non-Party, Steven James Miller’s Motion to Quash Civil Subpoena for Personal Appearance at Trial is DENIED. (2) Plaintiff, Roland Michael Guererro’s Motion to Compel the Trial Testimony of Steven James Miller Pursuant to Subpoena is GRANTED. Mr. Miller is ordered ...
...appear for trial. Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party, witness, consumer, or employee] … 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 b...
Feb 18, 2020
Motion to Quash Discovery Subpoena Ruling: Off Calendar per Stipulation – no hearing will be held.
Feb 18, 2020
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 Targe...
...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 ...
Feb 14, 2020
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO TAX COSTS I. Introduction. The motion of Plaintiffs Rebecca Singh, Ralie Singh And Stella Singh individually and as Trustees of the Ralie G. Singh and Stella M. Singh 1998 Family Revocable Trust, and Winning Hit LLC (Plaintiffs) pursuant ...
...and (8) to tax (reduce) the costs submitted and claimed by defendant Geneal Chima is denied as set forth below. Defendant Geneal Chima (Chima) seeks costs in the total amount of $9,112.38. Plaintiffs' motion seeks to tax Chima's claimed costs based on the following grounds: (1) Rebecca Singh is not a plaintiff in the first cause of action, and Chima has not allocated his costs between the Plaintiffs' two ...
Feb 13, 2020
...January 21, 2020 REPLIES: January 27, 2020 TENTATIVE: Carey and Dr. Lerner’s motions to quash Shakhnazarian’s subpoena are GRANTED. The subpoena for Dr. Lerner’s deposition in the New York Action is QUASHED. Carey is to give notice. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiff Lianna Shakhnazarian (“Shakhnazarian”) filed a Complaint against Mirage Entertainment, Inc., Mariah Carey (“Carey”), Stella Bulochnikov (“Bu...
...violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) The court, upon motion reasonably made by the party, may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas. (See, e.g., Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass’n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-83.) A court may abuse its discretion in denying requests for discovery, or in granting a motion to quash, ...
Feb 11, 2020
Motion to Quash or for a Protective Order Regarding Subpoenas (x16) Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff Melissa May Profeta (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defen...
...Plaintiff filed a motion to quash sixteen deposition subpoenas pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Trial is set for May 19, 2020. PARTY’S REQUESTS Plaintiff asks the Court to quash or limit sixteen deposition subpoenas through a protective order that Defendant The Vons Companies, Inc. (“Opposing Defendant”) issued to Plaintiff’s medical providers. Plaintiff also asks the Court ...
Feb 11, 2020
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs Heather Reyes, Amy Cruz (“Plaintiff”), and Edward Karpinski filed this action against defendants Jennifer Goodnight, Beverly Goodnight, Kwang Lee, ...
...Defendant issued a deposition subpoena for production of business records to Sue Frixione, PsyD for documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s care, treatment and examination. Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoenas for her psychological records. When a plaintiff puts her health and physical condition at issue, the privacy and privileges that normally attach to such sensitive information are “substantially lowe...
Feb 11, 2020
Hector Martinez v. Green Cuisine, Inc., et al. (1) MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL; (2) EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING DATES AND TRIAL DATE MOVING PARTY: (1) Carney R. Shegerian, Esq, counsel for Plaintiff Hector ...
...Martinez; (2) Plaintiff Hector Martinez RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) No oppositions to the motion itself; Defendants Green Cuisine, Inc. and Fresh & Ready Foods, LLC opposed it when it was combined with the motion to continue. (2) Defendants Green Cuisine, Inc. and Fresh & Ready Foods, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against and terminated after suffering a head injury that required him to take a...
Feb 11, 2020
Adam Devone, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC, et al. MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO G.W. SHERWOLD ASSOCIATES, INC. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Adam Devone, Mario Frank Voce, and Julia Voce, as co-trustees; and Adam Voce, as personal representative ...
...Inc. TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiffs’ motion to quash deposition subpoena for production of business records to G.W. Sherwold Associates, Inc. is DENIED AS MOOT as to Request Nos. 1 through 6 and 10 through 15. The motion is GRANTED IN PART as to Request Nos. 7 and 8. The motion is GRANTED as to these requests as to any documents after the Voce Trusts were transferred to G.W. Sherwold to avoid capturing non-responsive,...
Feb 10, 2020
michael allen denny, Plaintiff, v. hoang ba nguyen, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV15629 Hearing Date: February 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to quash subpoenas BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael Allen Denny (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Hoang Nguyen and Tuuyen Nguyen (“Defendants”), asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general n...
...Defendants oppose the motion. The motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Court denies the motion to quash the subpoenas in their entirety. The Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part. LEGAL STANDARD If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion to q...
Feb 10, 2020
jessica manuel, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Defendants. Case No.: BC721828 Hearing Date: February 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: MOTION TO quash or modify third-party subpoenas BACKGROUND Plaintiff Jessica Manuel (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against Defendant Blue Cross of California dba Anthem Blue Cross (“Anthem”) on September 14, 2018. The Complaint asserts caus...
...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.” (CCP § 1987.1(a), (b).) Motions to compel a non-party to produce documents must set forth facts showing good cause justifying the discovery sought. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)...
Feb 10, 2020
Motion to Quash Subpoena The Motion by Defendant loanDepot.com (“Defendant”) to quash the deposition subpoena to Kathy O’Halloran and to stay the deposition, is denied as moot. Plaintiff Tiffany Entsminger (“Plaintiff”) timely served a deposition notice for the taking of Ms. O’Halloran’s deposition. Defendant...
...aware this motion had been filed before the deposition was scheduled to begin, Plaintiff proceeded to take Ms. O’Halloran’s deposition. CCP section 2025.410, which Defendant cites in both its notice of motion and its supporting memorandum, provides, in relevant part: (1) “any deposition taken after the service of a written objection shall not be used against the objecting party under Section 2025.620 if th...
Feb 10, 2020
Motion to Compel Compliance with a Subpoenas Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. BACKGROUND On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff Maria Gallegos (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Ve...
...complaint alleges general and motor vehicle negligence for an automobile collision that occurred on June 16, 2017. On January 10, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to compel compliance with three deposition subpoenas issued to non-parties pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1. Trial is set for May 26, 2020. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendant asks the Court to compel non-parties Kaiser Foundation...
Feb 10, 2020
Estate of Walsh v CalTrans Motion to Quash Subpoena Calendar: 06 Case No.: BC652502 Hearing Date: February 07, 2020 Action Filed: March 02, 2017 Trial Date: Not Set MP: Plaintiffs Eryn Walsh and Lauren Anne Marie Walsh RP: Defendant California...
...Travelers). PRESENTATION: The instant motion was filed by Plaintiffs on November 22, 2019, with opposition filed by DOT on January 27, 2020. No reply has been received. RELIEF REQUESTED: Plaintiffs move to quash DOT’s subpoenas for business records from Rosaleen Fitzpatrick, MFT; and Nancy Twist, MFT. DISCUSSION: Standard of Review – Quash Subpoena – Code Civ. Proc. §1987.1 grants the trial court authority to quash a subp...
Feb 7, 2020
Plaintiff John King’s Motion to “Compel Responses to Request for Production of Business Records” as to third-party The Walker Law Firm APC (“The Law Firm”), is denied. On November 21, 2019, Plaintiff served The Law Firm with a de...
...records protected by attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, and were not relevant. (Lewis Decl., ¶12, Exh. 4.) On December 24, 2019, after meeting and conferring, Plaintiff served his motion by mail. (Lewis Decl., ¶15.) Plaintiff argues on Reply that the Opposition was late and should not be considered because the Opposition was electronically filed after 5 p.m. But, filing after 5 p.m. d...
Feb 7, 2020
Plaintiff Michael Brookey’s motion to quash Defendants Salvador Tinoco and National Grocers Corporation’s deposition subpoena for the production of business records issued on November 20, 2019 to CVS Pharmacy, Inc. located at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI 02895, is granted. A deposition subpoena that commands production of b...
...[confidential settlement agreements entitled to privacy protection: plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of compelling need for the information to be entitled to invade that protection].) Here, the subpoena requests “all documents, records, prescriptions, and other memoranda pertaining to the issuance and sale of prescription drugs to the patient, including but not limited to payment history, including a...
Feb 7, 2020
