Preview
00024875 v6
Charles M. Louderback, SBN 88788
Stacey L. Pratt, SBN 124892
Edward J. Donnelly, SBN 220980
LOUDERBACK LAW GROUP
345 California Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 615-0200
Facsimile: (415) 795-4775
E-Mail:
spratt@louderbackgroup.com
edonnelly@louderbackgroup.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MINOO PARSAZADEH
clouderback@louderbackgroup.com
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
04/12/2019
Clerk of the Court
BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
Deputy Clerk
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
MINOO PARSAZADEH, an individual,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD., a California
Corporation, and JOHN FULLERTON,
MD, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50
inclusive.
Defendants.
HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD., a California
Corporation, and ROES 1 through 50
inclusive,
Cross-Complainants,
v.
MINOO PARSAZADEH, an individual,
Cross-Defendant.
Case No. CGC-17-562581
[DISCOVERY MOTION]
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO
QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS
RECORDS
Date: May 6, 2019
Time: 9:00. a.m.
Dept.: 302
Judge: Ethan P, Schulman
Complaint filed: November 20, 2017
Trial date: May 20, 2019
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
oe ND
I. INTRODUCTION
Throughout this litigation, Defendants Hampton Health, Ltd. (“Hampton”) and John
Fullerton, M.D. (“Fullerton”) have willfully abused the discovery process in refusing to provide
discoverable information related to Plaintiff's claims and Hampton’s First Amended Cross-
Complaint (“FACC”), which Plaintiff contends is baseless and filed by Defendants as continued
retaliation against Plaintiff after she was terminated in July 2017 for confronting Fullerton about
questionable prescriptions he wrote for persons that did not appear to be patients of Hampton.
By withholding key documents, refusing to provide timely verified responses to written
discovery, and refusing to appear for his court-ordered deposition without justification or excuse,
Fullerton and Hampton have made a mockery of the litigation process and impaired Plaintiff's
ability to prosecute her claims and defend against the retaliatory FACC. Even after Defendants
were sanctioned twice by the Court for their discovery abuses, Defendants failed to comply with
two separate Court orders, including the Court’s mandate to Fullerton to appear by deposition by
March 6, 2019. Despite the Court’s order, Fullerton failed to appear, after representing (through
his limited representation counsel) that he would attend with new counsel (who was retained 3
days before his non-appearance).
Three days after Plaintiff filed the Terminating Motion, Defendants issued a number of
overbroad and invasive documents subpoenas to third parties, including Plaintiff's current
employer, her personal banking institution, physician, and former landlord. As nine of these
subpoenas seek broad and invasive personal information relating to Plaintiff, much of which has
no relevance whatsoever to this action, and Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court quashing
each of the nine deposition subpoenas.
If. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 26, 2019, following a long history of discovery abuses by Defendants
throughout the litigation, including the willful failure to comply with two Court orders, Plaintiff
filed her motion for termination sanction (the “Terminating Motion”). Declaration of Charles
-I-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
Louderback ISO Plaintiffs Motion For Order to Quash, filed herewith (“Louderback Dec.”), Ex.
A. The Termination Motion requests the Court (1) dismisses the FACC with prejudice, (2) strike
Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (3) stays further
proceedings by Defendants until the orders for discovery are obeyed, and (4) further, in the
alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order of contempt against Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure Section 2023.030(e). Id. The hearing for the Terminating Motion is set for April 19,
2019. Id.
On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff received Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business
Records respectively directed to (1) Bank of America, NA, (2) Dr. Moshen T. Moghaddam, (3)
1700 California Street Associates, LP, (4) Fall Prevention & Dizziness, (5) Harmony
Diagnostics, (6) Lyft, Inc. (7) Senior Resource Group, LLC, (8) Minoo Parsa Permanent Makeup
& Skincare and (9) Ragghianti Freitas LLP. Louderback Dec., Ex B. On April 3 and April 4,
2019, Plaintiff delivered meet and confer correspondence to Defendants demanding that each of
the above referenced subpoenas be withdrawn or modified due to a lack of relevance,
overbreadth, harassment and privacy concerns. Louderback Dec., Exs. C, D, & E.
On April 5 and April 8, 2019, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's meet and confer
correspondence, and refused to withdraw the subpoenas. Jd., Exs. F & G. On April 8 and April
9, 2019, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ letters in a final attempt to meet and confer. Jd., Exs.
H&I. When Defendants refused to withdraw or modify the deposition subpoenas, Plaintiff was
forced to file this motion for and order quashing each of the aforementioned subpoenas.
Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Standard for a Motion for Order to Quash
Any party to the action may challenge a deposition subpoena seeking production of
documents. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1 (a), (b). A motion to quash by a consumer or employee
must be served on the witness and the deposition officer at least five days before the date set for
production of the subpoenaed records. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3 (g); 1985.6(f).
-2-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
B. The Court Should Issue an Order Quashing the Nine Deposition Subpoenas
1. Bank of America, NA
This subpoena seeks records relating to Plaintiffs personal bank account with Bank of
America from October 2016 to the present. Louderback Dec., Ex. B. This is the second
subpoena that has been issued by defense counsel in this case to Bank of America. In May of
2018, Defendant’s first counsel in this litigation, Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, issued a
similar subpoena. Louderback Dec.,§11. The parties met and conferred on the issue and
Defendants’ counsel withdrew the subpoena.
Plaintiff's previous objections based on financial privacy remain legitimate objections to
this second subpoena which seeks Plaintiff's private bank records from October 2016 to the
present. Where private information is sought, the burden is on the requesting party to
demonstrate the information is directly relevant to the case, and the need for the information
outweighs the need for non-disclosure. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859.
Again, Plaintiff asked Defendants’ counsel, for each category of documents identified in the
subpoena, to describe how the category is “directly relevant” to the case; and describe any
evidence in support of your claim that each category of information is “directly relevant,” and
not a fishing expedition intended to harass Plaintiff.
In response, Defendants made the strange claim that because Plaintiff made payments
from her personal banking account, that all of her banking records are somehow now relevant.
Plaintiff responded that “you appear to have re-issued this subpoena without a full grasp of this
issue” and that “this is pure harassment and retaliation against our client and we are confident the
Court will agree.” Louderback Dec., Ex. H. Defendants refused to withdraw this subpoena, and
it should thus be quashed.
2. Moshen T. Moghaddam, M.D.
This subpoena seeks medical records from health care provider Dr. Moshen T.
Moghaddam for a seven-year period, and seeks the most private of information, Plaintiff's
3.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
mental health and diagnostic information pertaining to mental or psychological disorders.
Louderback Dec., Ex. B. Plaintiff objects to the production of any such records, to the extent
they exist, on grounds that the records sought by this subpoena are protected by her
constitutional right to privacy in her medical records. Furthermore, the privacy rights of third
parties may also be implicated by production of such records, Discovery of such
constitutionally-protected information is akin to discovery of privileged information, and thus is
more narrowly proscribed than ordinary discovery means. See Hunter Tylo v. Spalling
Entertainment Group (1997) 55 Cal.App.4" 1379, 1387. When such privacy rights are at issue,
the discovery must be “directly relevant to the litigation.” (/d., at 1387.)
When asked to identify how these potential medical records could be “directly relevant”
the case, Defendants failed to provide any logical explanation. The subpoena should be quashed.
3. Fall Prevention & Dizziness and Harmony Diagnostics
These subpoenas request the production of all documents relating to each of these
companies’ formation, corporate records, bank records, tax returns, insurance policies, strategic
partnership agreements, marketing materials, and “any and all other information in your
possession not specifically requested above.” This overbroad and invasive request into
Plaintiffs business entities is an attempted end around Defendants’ previous failures in
discovery. Defendants served their Request for Production of Documents, Set One on May 1,
2018. Defendants failed to make a timely motion to compel. Defendants made similar requests
in their Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, but Plaintiff objected to this discovery
due to Defendants’ failure to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity.
Defendants once again let the time run on filing a motion to compel. Louderback Dec., 12.
Moreover, the subpoenas are overbroad and seek documents that have no direct relevance
to the issues in this litigation, including private financial records and tax returns. The Court
should issue an order to quash the subpoenas to Fall Prevention & Dizziness and Harmony
Diagnostics.
-4-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
4. 1700 California Street LP
This subpoena asks for records pertaining to an apartment in which Plaintiff resided, and
asks for the lease, rental application, security deposit information, and copies of lease payment
checks. Louderback Dec., Ex. B. In short, the subpoena seeks personal and. private financial
information regarding Plaintiff's tenancy, which is protected by her constitutional right to
privacy.
When pressed, Defendants’ justification for this subpoena seeking rental and financial
information for Plaintiff's private residence is the “extreme coincidence” that Plaintiff resided in
the same building as Hampton’s offices, and Hampton’s unfounded allegation in the FACC that
she directed Hampton’s mail to another address. Louderback Dec., Ex. G. Defendants have
shown no direct relevance to obtain information regarding her “rental application, lease
agreement, security deposit information, and copies of actual checks used for rental payments.”
This is simply another attempt by Defendants to get into Plaintiff's private financial information
without justification.
5. Minoo Parsa Permanent Makeup & Skincare
This subpoena seeks records regarding the formation of the company, all corporate
financial records, bank records, payroll information, tax returns, strategic partnership agreement,
marketing materials, licenses, and “any other information in your possession not specifically
requested above.” Louderback Dec., Ex. B. This subpoena is overbroad, seeks private financial
and tax information that is subject to constitutional and statutory protections. Jd.
Defendants attempt to justify this subpoena with the claim that this invasive intrusion into
our client’s private financial, bank, and tax records is relevant to “Defendants” defenses against
Plaintiffs claims in this lawsuit.” Louderback Dec.. Ex. G. Tellingly, Defendants were unable
(or unwilling) to identify what “defenses” they are referring to. Jd.
6. Lyft, Inc. and Senior Resource Group, LLC
These subpoenas seek employment/contractor records, including not only income
-5S-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
information, but work performance related records. The only aspect of these records which is
discoverable are records relating to income derived from work performed for these entities. The
rest is of no direct relevance to the litigation. Plaintiff offered to produce documents sufficient to
show her income from these entities upon withdrawal of the subpoenas, but Defendants did not
agree. Louderback Dec., Ex. H.
Defendants make the unsupported claim that because Senior Resource Group, LLC and
Hampton Health, Ltd. have some (undefined) “overlap,” that all of Plaintiffs work performance
records are discoverable. Louderback Dec., Ex. H. Plaintiff can only conclude that Defendants
are directing this subpoena to her current employer to harass Plaintiff and interfere with her
employment relationship. Senior Resource Group, LLC is simply her employer and it has
nothing to do with Hampton or the baseless allegations in the FACC. Other than for purposes of
mitigation, none of the records sought here are directly relevant to any issues in this case. Both
subpoenas should be quashed.
7. Ragghianti Freitas LLP
As to this subpoena to the law firm Ragghianti Freitas LLP, Defendants provide no
authority to support the notion that this subpoena, which seeks all records relating to Plaintiff's
retention of this law firm (Louderback Dec., Ex. B), is discoverable, Documents relating to the
retention (such as retention or engagement letters) could disclose the subject matter of the
representation and discussions between attorney and client which are squarely within the
attorney-client privilege. This subpoena for documents extends far beyond the “independent
facts” related to communications about the representation. See State Farm Fire and Casualty
Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4"" 625, 640. It should be quashed.
Mt
Il
Mt
Mt
-6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6
C. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion for
an order quashing the nine deposition subpoenas that are the subject of this motion.
DATED: March 29, 2019 LOUDERBACK LAW GROUP
Dy eee
‘Charles M. Louderback
Stacey L, Pratt
Edward J. Donnelly
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MINOO PARSAZADEH
-T-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS;
Case No.: CGC-17-562581PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Erika R. Shannon, am employed in the ‘City and County of San Francisco, State of]
California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My
business is 345 California Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104, and my email address is
eshannon@louderbackgroup.com. On April 12, 2019, I served the following document(s)
described as:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS
on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed
envelope(s) addressed as stated below:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
XX] BY ONELEGAL: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through
One Legal addressed to all proper parties appearing on the One Legal electronic Service
List.
x BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the said document(s) to be served by hand delivery
to the person(s) addressed above.
Xx
BY E-MAIL: Additionally, I caused said documents to be prepared in portable document
format (PDF) for e-mailing and served by electronic mail on April 12, 2019 as indicated
above, That the document was served electronically and the transmission was reported as
complete and without error,
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct. Executed on April 12, 2019, at San Francisc: Califorfa.\ a. a wang
x FOL UNG
~ Brika R. Shannon, CCLS
PROOF OF SERVICE; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100022017 v3
aN Dw
SERVICE LIST
Attorneys for Defendants HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD.
and JOHN FULLERTON, M.D.
Maureen K, Bogue Phone: 415-985-7300
Jocelyn M. Chan Fax: 415-985-7301
PACIFIC EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLP Email:
101 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com
jocelyn@pacificemploymentlaw.com
2
Preview
00024875 v6 Charles M. Louderback, SBN 88788 Stacey L. Pratt, SBN 124892 Edward J. Donnelly, SBN 220980 LOUDERBACK LAW GROUP 345 California Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 615-0200 Facsimile: (415) 795-4775 E-Mail: spratt@louderbackgroup.com edonnelly@louderbackgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff MINOO PARSAZADEH clouderback@louderbackgroup.com ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 04/12/2019 Clerk of the Court BY: SANDRA SCHIRO Deputy Clerk IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION MINOO PARSAZADEH, an individual, Plaintiff, Vv. HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD., a California Corporation, and JOHN FULLERTON, MD, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive. Defendants. HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD., a California Corporation, and ROES 1 through 50 inclusive, Cross-Complainants, v. MINOO PARSAZADEH, an individual, Cross-Defendant. Case No. CGC-17-562581 [DISCOVERY MOTION] MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS Date: May 6, 2019 Time: 9:00. a.m. Dept.: 302 Judge: Ethan P, Schulman Complaint filed: November 20, 2017 Trial date: May 20, 2019 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 oe ND I. INTRODUCTION Throughout this litigation, Defendants Hampton Health, Ltd. (“Hampton”) and John Fullerton, M.D. (“Fullerton”) have willfully abused the discovery process in refusing to provide discoverable information related to Plaintiff's claims and Hampton’s First Amended Cross- Complaint (“FACC”), which Plaintiff contends is baseless and filed by Defendants as continued retaliation against Plaintiff after she was terminated in July 2017 for confronting Fullerton about questionable prescriptions he wrote for persons that did not appear to be patients of Hampton. By withholding key documents, refusing to provide timely verified responses to written discovery, and refusing to appear for his court-ordered deposition without justification or excuse, Fullerton and Hampton have made a mockery of the litigation process and impaired Plaintiff's ability to prosecute her claims and defend against the retaliatory FACC. Even after Defendants were sanctioned twice by the Court for their discovery abuses, Defendants failed to comply with two separate Court orders, including the Court’s mandate to Fullerton to appear by deposition by March 6, 2019. Despite the Court’s order, Fullerton failed to appear, after representing (through his limited representation counsel) that he would attend with new counsel (who was retained 3 days before his non-appearance). Three days after Plaintiff filed the Terminating Motion, Defendants issued a number of overbroad and invasive documents subpoenas to third parties, including Plaintiff's current employer, her personal banking institution, physician, and former landlord. As nine of these subpoenas seek broad and invasive personal information relating to Plaintiff, much of which has no relevance whatsoever to this action, and Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court quashing each of the nine deposition subpoenas. If. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 26, 2019, following a long history of discovery abuses by Defendants throughout the litigation, including the willful failure to comply with two Court orders, Plaintiff filed her motion for termination sanction (the “Terminating Motion”). Declaration of Charles -I- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 Louderback ISO Plaintiffs Motion For Order to Quash, filed herewith (“Louderback Dec.”), Ex. A. The Termination Motion requests the Court (1) dismisses the FACC with prejudice, (2) strike Defendants’ answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), (3) stays further proceedings by Defendants until the orders for discovery are obeyed, and (4) further, in the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order of contempt against Defendants pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2023.030(e). Id. The hearing for the Terminating Motion is set for April 19, 2019. Id. On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff received Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records respectively directed to (1) Bank of America, NA, (2) Dr. Moshen T. Moghaddam, (3) 1700 California Street Associates, LP, (4) Fall Prevention & Dizziness, (5) Harmony Diagnostics, (6) Lyft, Inc. (7) Senior Resource Group, LLC, (8) Minoo Parsa Permanent Makeup & Skincare and (9) Ragghianti Freitas LLP. Louderback Dec., Ex B. On April 3 and April 4, 2019, Plaintiff delivered meet and confer correspondence to Defendants demanding that each of the above referenced subpoenas be withdrawn or modified due to a lack of relevance, overbreadth, harassment and privacy concerns. Louderback Dec., Exs. C, D, & E. On April 5 and April 8, 2019, Defendants responded to Plaintiff's meet and confer correspondence, and refused to withdraw the subpoenas. Jd., Exs. F & G. On April 8 and April 9, 2019, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ letters in a final attempt to meet and confer. Jd., Exs. H&I. When Defendants refused to withdraw or modify the deposition subpoenas, Plaintiff was forced to file this motion for and order quashing each of the aforementioned subpoenas. Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Standard for a Motion for Order to Quash Any party to the action may challenge a deposition subpoena seeking production of documents. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1 (a), (b). A motion to quash by a consumer or employee must be served on the witness and the deposition officer at least five days before the date set for production of the subpoenaed records. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3 (g); 1985.6(f). -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 B. The Court Should Issue an Order Quashing the Nine Deposition Subpoenas 1. Bank of America, NA This subpoena seeks records relating to Plaintiffs personal bank account with Bank of America from October 2016 to the present. Louderback Dec., Ex. B. This is the second subpoena that has been issued by defense counsel in this case to Bank of America. In May of 2018, Defendant’s first counsel in this litigation, Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, issued a similar subpoena. Louderback Dec.,§11. The parties met and conferred on the issue and Defendants’ counsel withdrew the subpoena. Plaintiff's previous objections based on financial privacy remain legitimate objections to this second subpoena which seeks Plaintiff's private bank records from October 2016 to the present. Where private information is sought, the burden is on the requesting party to demonstrate the information is directly relevant to the case, and the need for the information outweighs the need for non-disclosure. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. Again, Plaintiff asked Defendants’ counsel, for each category of documents identified in the subpoena, to describe how the category is “directly relevant” to the case; and describe any evidence in support of your claim that each category of information is “directly relevant,” and not a fishing expedition intended to harass Plaintiff. In response, Defendants made the strange claim that because Plaintiff made payments from her personal banking account, that all of her banking records are somehow now relevant. Plaintiff responded that “you appear to have re-issued this subpoena without a full grasp of this issue” and that “this is pure harassment and retaliation against our client and we are confident the Court will agree.” Louderback Dec., Ex. H. Defendants refused to withdraw this subpoena, and it should thus be quashed. 2. Moshen T. Moghaddam, M.D. This subpoena seeks medical records from health care provider Dr. Moshen T. Moghaddam for a seven-year period, and seeks the most private of information, Plaintiff's 3. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 mental health and diagnostic information pertaining to mental or psychological disorders. Louderback Dec., Ex. B. Plaintiff objects to the production of any such records, to the extent they exist, on grounds that the records sought by this subpoena are protected by her constitutional right to privacy in her medical records. Furthermore, the privacy rights of third parties may also be implicated by production of such records, Discovery of such constitutionally-protected information is akin to discovery of privileged information, and thus is more narrowly proscribed than ordinary discovery means. See Hunter Tylo v. Spalling Entertainment Group (1997) 55 Cal.App.4" 1379, 1387. When such privacy rights are at issue, the discovery must be “directly relevant to the litigation.” (/d., at 1387.) When asked to identify how these potential medical records could be “directly relevant” the case, Defendants failed to provide any logical explanation. The subpoena should be quashed. 3. Fall Prevention & Dizziness and Harmony Diagnostics These subpoenas request the production of all documents relating to each of these companies’ formation, corporate records, bank records, tax returns, insurance policies, strategic partnership agreements, marketing materials, and “any and all other information in your possession not specifically requested above.” This overbroad and invasive request into Plaintiffs business entities is an attempted end around Defendants’ previous failures in discovery. Defendants served their Request for Production of Documents, Set One on May 1, 2018. Defendants failed to make a timely motion to compel. Defendants made similar requests in their Request for Production of Documents, Set Two, but Plaintiff objected to this discovery due to Defendants’ failure to identify its alleged trade secrets with sufficient particularity. Defendants once again let the time run on filing a motion to compel. Louderback Dec., 12. Moreover, the subpoenas are overbroad and seek documents that have no direct relevance to the issues in this litigation, including private financial records and tax returns. The Court should issue an order to quash the subpoenas to Fall Prevention & Dizziness and Harmony Diagnostics. -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 4. 1700 California Street LP This subpoena asks for records pertaining to an apartment in which Plaintiff resided, and asks for the lease, rental application, security deposit information, and copies of lease payment checks. Louderback Dec., Ex. B. In short, the subpoena seeks personal and. private financial information regarding Plaintiff's tenancy, which is protected by her constitutional right to privacy. When pressed, Defendants’ justification for this subpoena seeking rental and financial information for Plaintiff's private residence is the “extreme coincidence” that Plaintiff resided in the same building as Hampton’s offices, and Hampton’s unfounded allegation in the FACC that she directed Hampton’s mail to another address. Louderback Dec., Ex. G. Defendants have shown no direct relevance to obtain information regarding her “rental application, lease agreement, security deposit information, and copies of actual checks used for rental payments.” This is simply another attempt by Defendants to get into Plaintiff's private financial information without justification. 5. Minoo Parsa Permanent Makeup & Skincare This subpoena seeks records regarding the formation of the company, all corporate financial records, bank records, payroll information, tax returns, strategic partnership agreement, marketing materials, licenses, and “any other information in your possession not specifically requested above.” Louderback Dec., Ex. B. This subpoena is overbroad, seeks private financial and tax information that is subject to constitutional and statutory protections. Jd. Defendants attempt to justify this subpoena with the claim that this invasive intrusion into our client’s private financial, bank, and tax records is relevant to “Defendants” defenses against Plaintiffs claims in this lawsuit.” Louderback Dec.. Ex. G. Tellingly, Defendants were unable (or unwilling) to identify what “defenses” they are referring to. Jd. 6. Lyft, Inc. and Senior Resource Group, LLC These subpoenas seek employment/contractor records, including not only income -5S- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 information, but work performance related records. The only aspect of these records which is discoverable are records relating to income derived from work performed for these entities. The rest is of no direct relevance to the litigation. Plaintiff offered to produce documents sufficient to show her income from these entities upon withdrawal of the subpoenas, but Defendants did not agree. Louderback Dec., Ex. H. Defendants make the unsupported claim that because Senior Resource Group, LLC and Hampton Health, Ltd. have some (undefined) “overlap,” that all of Plaintiffs work performance records are discoverable. Louderback Dec., Ex. H. Plaintiff can only conclude that Defendants are directing this subpoena to her current employer to harass Plaintiff and interfere with her employment relationship. Senior Resource Group, LLC is simply her employer and it has nothing to do with Hampton or the baseless allegations in the FACC. Other than for purposes of mitigation, none of the records sought here are directly relevant to any issues in this case. Both subpoenas should be quashed. 7. Ragghianti Freitas LLP As to this subpoena to the law firm Ragghianti Freitas LLP, Defendants provide no authority to support the notion that this subpoena, which seeks all records relating to Plaintiff's retention of this law firm (Louderback Dec., Ex. B), is discoverable, Documents relating to the retention (such as retention or engagement letters) could disclose the subject matter of the representation and discussions between attorney and client which are squarely within the attorney-client privilege. This subpoena for documents extends far beyond the “independent facts” related to communications about the representation. See State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4"" 625, 640. It should be quashed. Mt Il Mt Mt -6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100024875 v6 C. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion for an order quashing the nine deposition subpoenas that are the subject of this motion. DATED: March 29, 2019 LOUDERBACK LAW GROUP Dy eee ‘Charles M. Louderback Stacey L, Pratt Edward J. Donnelly Attorneys for Plaintiff MINOO PARSAZADEH -T- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECODS; Case No.: CGC-17-562581PROOF OF SERVICE I, Erika R. Shannon, am employed in the ‘City and County of San Francisco, State of] California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action. My business is 345 California Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104, and my email address is eshannon@louderbackgroup.com. On April 12, 2019, I served the following document(s) described as: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO QUASH SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST XX] BY ONELEGAL: By causing a true and correct copy thereof to be served through One Legal addressed to all proper parties appearing on the One Legal electronic Service List. x BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused the said document(s) to be served by hand delivery to the person(s) addressed above. Xx BY E-MAIL: Additionally, I caused said documents to be prepared in portable document format (PDF) for e-mailing and served by electronic mail on April 12, 2019 as indicated above, That the document was served electronically and the transmission was reported as complete and without error, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on April 12, 2019, at San Francisc: Califorfa.\ a. a wang x FOL UNG ~ Brika R. Shannon, CCLS PROOF OF SERVICE; Case No.: CGC-17-56258100022017 v3 aN Dw SERVICE LIST Attorneys for Defendants HAMPTON HEALTH, LTD. and JOHN FULLERTON, M.D. Maureen K, Bogue Phone: 415-985-7300 Jocelyn M. Chan Fax: 415-985-7301 PACIFIC EMPLOYMENT LAW, LLP Email: 101 California Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94111 maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com jocelyn@pacificemploymentlaw.com 2