Preview
1 John K. Paulson, Esq., Bar No. 182226
2 Petra Radusic, Esq., Bar No. 343713
Jason Ahdoot, Esq. Bar No. 23167-0
3 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR
One World Trade Center, 27th Floor
4 Long Beach, California 90831-2700
(562) 983-2500
5
Email: jpaulson@fwhb.com / pradusic@fwhb.com
6
Attorneys for Defendant,
7 PATRICIA HOBIN
8
9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
11 DAVID PENA, ) Case No. BCV-23-103586
)
12 Plaintiff, ) Hon. T. Mark Smith
13 ) Dept. T-2
vs. )
14 ) DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S
PATRICIA HOBIN; and DOES 1 TO 100, ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
15 ) TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH
16 Defendants. ) 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON
) AHDOOT
17 )
) Hearing Date: May 30, 2024
18 ) Hearing time: 8:30am
19 ) Dept: T-2 Judge: Hon. T. Mark Smith
) Address: 3131 Arrow St Bakersfield, CA 93308
20 )
) Complaint Filed: October 25, 2023
21 ) CMC Date: April 23, 2024 @ 8:30 A.M.
22
23 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
24 Defendant, PATRICIA HOBIN ("Defendant"), hereby submits the following Opposition to
25 Plaintiff DAVID PENA’s Motion to Quash Subpoena issues March 28, 2024.
26 I. INTRODUCTION & FACTUAL BACKGROUND
27 This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd
28 and Tucker Road, in Tehachapi CA, on July 26, 2023. (See Declaration of Jason Ahdoot (“Ahdoot
1
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 Dec.”), ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for damages in Kern County Superior Court on October 25,
2 2023. Ahdoot Dec. ¶3. Liability is disputed; it is believed that a surveillance camera captured the
3 accident. Ahdoot Dec. ¶4. As part of her investigation and preparation for trial, on March 28, 2024,
4 Defendant issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, which reads: “Records to
5 be produced pertaining to David Pena, DOB: June 23, 1978, SS# UNK, from any and all dates. Include
6 surveillance videos for 7/26/2023 at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561” (the
7
“Subpoena”). Ahdoot Dec. ¶5. Without objecting to the Subpoena, or attempting to meet and confer,
8
Plaintiff filed this Motion to Quash. Ahdoot Dec. ¶6.
9
It has come to Defendant’s attention that the Subpoena appears to contain a typo, specifically,
10
the text “from any and all dates” which contradicts the specific request for “surveillance videos for
11
7/26/2023” was inadvertently included; Accordingly, to the extent the language in the Subpoena needs
12
to be edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations, but the Court should deny Plaintiff’s
13
motion to quash the subpoenas and allow production of surveillance video. Ahdoot Dec. ¶7.
14
II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
15
This opposition is made and based upon Code of Civil Procedure 1987.1, et seq. California Code
16
of Civil Procedure § 1987.1(a) provides,
17
If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books,
18 documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court,
or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court,
19 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
20
to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying
21 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
22 any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from
unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of
23
the right of privacy of the person.
24
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
25
Defendants believe that the court should enforce the subpoena that Plaintiff seeks to quash for
26
many reasons. First, Defendant is entitled to discovery of the surveillance video sought by the Subpoena
27
under California law because it may impact issues of causation for which Plaintiff is seeking damages.
28
Second, the surveillance video, which is believed to contain footage of the accident in question, is directly
2
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 relevant to the litigation. Third, the Subpoena only seeks video surveillance of public streets, in which
2 no party has any reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus there is no privacy interest in preventing
3 disclosure of the documents sought by the subpoena. Finally, Plaintiff failed to either object to, or attempt
4 to meet and confer regarding the Subpoena, opting instead, for unexplained reasons, to file this Motion
5 and seek sanctions.
6 A. Defendant’s Subpoenas are Allowed Under California Law
7
The scope of discovery permitted during litigation is defined in California by Code of Civil
8
Procedure § 2017.010, which provides that information is discoverable so long as it is either itself
9
admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” For discovery
10
purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist
11
a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Superior
12
Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546. It is not a requirement that Defendants demonstrate that all the
13
requested information ultimately be admissible for the Court to enforce the subpoena. Alch v. Superior
14
Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1430.
15
Here, Defendant merely seeks surveillance video from the day ion question that would have
16
captured the subject accident. Moreover, while Plaintiff claims a right to privacy to the subpoenas, a
17
privilege is waived if a party puts the matter for which she claims a privilege at issue in the case. Steiny
18
& Co., Inc. v. California Elec. Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 292. Indeed, the California
19
20 Evidence Code specifically provides that there is no privilege over records concerning the condition of
21 the patient if the patient raised the issue. Cal. Evid. Code § 996(a).
22 Any surveillance video capturing the accident will assist Defendant and Plaintiff in evaluating the
23 case and preparing for trial. It will also potentially assist the trier of fact. California law thus supports
24 Defendants’ position, and Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery to determine the nature, extent,
25 and cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injures and damages. Furthermore, Plaintiff has placed liability at issue
26 and, even if there was a any privacy interest, it has been waived. These grounds are sufficient to have
27 Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas denied.
28 ///
3
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 B. The Records are Directly Relevant to the Litigation and Outweigh Any Privilege
2 Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 provides in part that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any
3 matter” so long as the discovery is “relevant to the subject matter involved” and is “either is itself
4 admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
5 Even if the privilege was not waived, which it was, Defendants are entitled to the records sought because
6 the right of privacy is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court balances the right of privacy against
7
the need for discovery and the related public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. Britt v. San
8
Diego Unified Port Dist. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.
9
The purpose of the discovery statutes is “to educate the parties concerning their claims and
10
defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial.” Emerson Electric Co. v.
11
Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107. To accomplish that purpose, the Court cited the landmark
12
case of Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, for the proposition that the discovery
13
statutes must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper in light
14
of strong public policies. The rule of disclosure in discovery is “not only one of liberal interpretation, but
15
one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations
16
clearly prohibit it.” Id. at 378.
17
As stated in Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249:
18
The expansive scope of discovery is a deliberate attempt to take the game
19 element out of trial preparation and to do away with the sporting theory
of litigation – namely, surprise at trial. One key legislative purpose of the
20 discovery statute is to educate the parties concerning their claims and
21 defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate
trial. The discovery procedures are also designed to minimize the
22 opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness. Consistent with these
purposes, our Supreme Court has often stated that discovery statutes
23 are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosure, so as to uphold
the right to discovery whenever possible.
24
[Emphasis added; internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]
25
On occasion, a litigant’s privacy interests may have to give way to their opponent’s right to a fair
26
trial. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842; see also, Palay v. Superior Court (1993) 18
27
28 Cal.App.4th 919, 933 (“The state has enough of an interest in discovering the truth in legal proceedings,
4
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 that it may compel disclosure of confidential material.”) Even sensitive, personal information may be
2 ordered disclosed if it is shown to be potentially directly relevant and essential to a fair determination of
3 the action. Alch, 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1431-1432.
4 Here, video of the accident at issue is directly relevant in this case because liability is disputed.
5 The records sought will show how the accident occurred. Accordingly, no privilege applies to the records
6 because Plaintiff’s privacy interest is outweighed by the need for discovery and the related public interest
7
in obtaining just results in litigation.
8
C. No Expectation of Privacy
9
The Subpoena seeks surveillance video “at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561”
10
which a public street, at which Plaintiff thus has no expectation of privacy. See, Vo v. City of Garden
11
Grove, 115 Cal. App. 4th 425, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257 (4th Dist. 2004) (court held that a person sitting in an
12
internet cafe did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would defeat a city ordinance
13
permitting video surveillance in an effort to combat criminal gang activity) The Vo court observed: "With
14
the near ubiquitous use of video surveillance in retail establishments, at automated bank teller machines
15
and at road intersections, it is difficult to imagine. . . that the customer's expectation of privacy is
16
reasonable under the circumstances." Id at 450. Here, the circumstances are similar, with Defendant only
17
seeking surveillance video of public areas. The Court should enforce compliance with the Subpoena.
18
D. The Court Should Enforce -- Instead of Quash -- the Subpoenas
19
20 The Court has authority to make an order directing compliance with a subpoena. Code of Civil
21 Procedure § 1987.1(a). Plaintiff seeks to prevent discovery about the accident in question. As set forth
22 above, Defendant is entitled to such discovery as it may impact issues of causation and liability for which
23 Plaintiff is seeking significant damages. Plaintiff should not be allowed to preclude discovery of such
24 directly relevant evidence. As a result, the Court can and should enforce compliance with the subject
25 subpoenas.
26 E. Plaintiff’s Failure to Object or Meet and Confer Should Preclude Relief, Sanctions
27 Considering this entire motion was totally unnecessary and very likely could have been avoided
28 with the courtesy of a five-minute phone call or email, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied
5
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 in its entirety. Plaintiff fails to explain why motion practice was necessary. The closest thing to an
2 explanation offered by Plaintiff is: “Due to the exigency of the deadline with which to file the motion to
3 quash, the reasonably likelihood that the subpoenas could not be withdrawn or modified prior to the time
4 for production, and the inherent private contents of those records, Plaintiff PENA filed this Motion to
5 Quash. See Declaration of Angelo F. Campano, Paragraph 4.”
6 However, considering the Subpoena was served on March 28, 2024, and this Motion was filed on
7
April 19, 2024, how a period of 22 days to act can be construed as “exigency” remains a mystery.
8
9
IV. CONCLUSION
10
Based on the foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
11
deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena in its entirety and issue an Order that fully compels
12
production in accordance with the subpoenas. To the extent the language in the Subpoena needs to be
13
edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations.
14
Dated: May 10, 2024
15 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR
16
17
BY:________________________________
18 JOHN K. PAULSON
19 PETRA RADUSIC
JASON AHDOOT
20 Attorneys for Defendant,
PATRICIA HOBIN
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
2 I, Jason Ahdoot, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in California and a Senior Counsel at Ford, Walker, Haggerty
4 & Behar, attorneys of record for Defendants in the above captioned matter. I have personal knowledge
of the facts contained in this Declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently
5
testify thereto.
6
2. Based on a review of the pleadings, this matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred
7
on 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd and Tucker Road, in Tehachapi CA, on July 26, 2023.
8
3. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for damages in Kern County Superior Court on October 25, 2023.
9 4. Liability is disputed; it is believed that a surveillance camera captured the accident.
10 5. As part of her investigation and preparation for trial, on March 28, 2024, Defendant issued a
11 Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, which reads: “Records to be produced
12 pertaining to David Pena, DOB: June 23, 1978, SS# UNK, from any and all dates. Include surveillance
13 videos for 7/26/2023 at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561” (the “Subpoena”).
6. Without objecting to the Subpoena, or attempting to meet and confer, Plaintiff filed this Motion
14
to Quash.
15
7. It has come to Defendant’s attention that the Subpoena appears to contain a typo, specifically, the
16
text “from any and all dates” which contradicts the specific request for “surveillance videos for
17 7/26/2023” was inadvertently included; Accordingly, to the extent the language in the Subpoena needs
18 to be edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations, but the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion
19 to quash the subpoenas and allow production of surveillance video.
20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was
21 executed this 10th day of May 2024, at Long Beach, California.
22
23
___________________________
24
Jason Ahdoot, Declarant
25
26
27
28
7
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
2 PENA vs. HOBIN
19923-265
3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
4 ) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
5
I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the
6 within entitled action; my business address is: One World Trade Center, Twenty-Seventh Floor, Long
7 Beach, California 90831-2700
8 On May 10, 2024, I served the within: DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024;
9 DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT on the interested parties in said action,
10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
11 ☒ (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) A copy of said document(s) was delivered by electronic
transmission to the addressee(s) pursuant to C.C.P.1010.6 I caused the documents to be sent from
12 mgarzone@fwhb.com to the person(s) at the electronic notification addresses listed below.
13
14 On May 13, 2024, I served the within: DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION
15
OF JASON AHDOOT on the interested parties in said action,
16 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
17 ☒(BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of documents
18 and correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, on the above
date the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing following the ordinary business
19 practices of our office. This results in the envelope being delivered to the United States Postal Service
in Long Beach, California, that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid.
20
Executed on May 10, 2024, at Long Beach, California.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true
22 and correct.
23
24 ___________________________________
Mary Garzone
25
26
27
28
8
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
1 SERVICE LIST
2 PENA vs. HOBIN
19923-265
3
4 Superior Court of CA, County of Kern
Case No: BCV-23-103586
5
6
Angelo F. Campano, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 CAMPANO LAW GROUP, David Pena
A Professional Corporation
8 41301 12th Street West, Suite G
Palmdale, California 93551
9
10 Telephone: (661) 945-5300
Fax: (661) 945-5310
11 Email: acampano@campanolaw.com
(Hard Copies via mail also)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT
Preview
1 John K. Paulson, Esq., Bar No. 182226 2 Petra Radusic, Esq., Bar No. 343713 Jason Ahdoot, Esq. Bar No. 23167-0 3 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR One World Trade Center, 27th Floor 4 Long Beach, California 90831-2700 (562) 983-2500 5 Email: jpaulson@fwhb.com / pradusic@fwhb.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant, 7 PATRICIA HOBIN 8 9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN 11 DAVID PENA, ) Case No. BCV-23-103586 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) Hon. T. Mark Smith 13 ) Dept. T-2 vs. ) 14 ) DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S PATRICIA HOBIN; and DOES 1 TO 100, ) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 15 ) TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 16 Defendants. ) 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON ) AHDOOT 17 ) ) Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 18 ) Hearing time: 8:30am 19 ) Dept: T-2 Judge: Hon. T. Mark Smith ) Address: 3131 Arrow St Bakersfield, CA 93308 20 ) ) Complaint Filed: October 25, 2023 21 ) CMC Date: April 23, 2024 @ 8:30 A.M. 22 23 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 24 Defendant, PATRICIA HOBIN ("Defendant"), hereby submits the following Opposition to 25 Plaintiff DAVID PENA’s Motion to Quash Subpoena issues March 28, 2024. 26 I. INTRODUCTION & FACTUAL BACKGROUND 27 This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd 28 and Tucker Road, in Tehachapi CA, on July 26, 2023. (See Declaration of Jason Ahdoot (“Ahdoot 1 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 Dec.”), ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for damages in Kern County Superior Court on October 25, 2 2023. Ahdoot Dec. ¶3. Liability is disputed; it is believed that a surveillance camera captured the 3 accident. Ahdoot Dec. ¶4. As part of her investigation and preparation for trial, on March 28, 2024, 4 Defendant issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, which reads: “Records to 5 be produced pertaining to David Pena, DOB: June 23, 1978, SS# UNK, from any and all dates. Include 6 surveillance videos for 7/26/2023 at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561” (the 7 “Subpoena”). Ahdoot Dec. ¶5. Without objecting to the Subpoena, or attempting to meet and confer, 8 Plaintiff filed this Motion to Quash. Ahdoot Dec. ¶6. 9 It has come to Defendant’s attention that the Subpoena appears to contain a typo, specifically, 10 the text “from any and all dates” which contradicts the specific request for “surveillance videos for 11 7/26/2023” was inadvertently included; Accordingly, to the extent the language in the Subpoena needs 12 to be edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations, but the Court should deny Plaintiff’s 13 motion to quash the subpoenas and allow production of surveillance video. Ahdoot Dec. ¶7. 14 II. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 15 This opposition is made and based upon Code of Civil Procedure 1987.1, et seq. California Code 16 of Civil Procedure § 1987.1(a) provides, 17 If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, 18 documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, 19 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 20 to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying 21 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 22 any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of 23 the right of privacy of the person. 24 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 25 Defendants believe that the court should enforce the subpoena that Plaintiff seeks to quash for 26 many reasons. First, Defendant is entitled to discovery of the surveillance video sought by the Subpoena 27 under California law because it may impact issues of causation for which Plaintiff is seeking damages. 28 Second, the surveillance video, which is believed to contain footage of the accident in question, is directly 2 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 relevant to the litigation. Third, the Subpoena only seeks video surveillance of public streets, in which 2 no party has any reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus there is no privacy interest in preventing 3 disclosure of the documents sought by the subpoena. Finally, Plaintiff failed to either object to, or attempt 4 to meet and confer regarding the Subpoena, opting instead, for unexplained reasons, to file this Motion 5 and seek sanctions. 6 A. Defendant’s Subpoenas are Allowed Under California Law 7 The scope of discovery permitted during litigation is defined in California by Code of Civil 8 Procedure § 2017.010, which provides that information is discoverable so long as it is either itself 9 admissible or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” For discovery 10 purposes, information should be regarded as “relevant to the subject matter” if it might reasonably assist 11 a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial or facilitating settlement thereof. Gonzalez v. Superior 12 Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546. It is not a requirement that Defendants demonstrate that all the 13 requested information ultimately be admissible for the Court to enforce the subpoena. Alch v. Superior 14 Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1430. 15 Here, Defendant merely seeks surveillance video from the day ion question that would have 16 captured the subject accident. Moreover, while Plaintiff claims a right to privacy to the subpoenas, a 17 privilege is waived if a party puts the matter for which she claims a privilege at issue in the case. Steiny 18 & Co., Inc. v. California Elec. Supply Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 285, 292. Indeed, the California 19 20 Evidence Code specifically provides that there is no privilege over records concerning the condition of 21 the patient if the patient raised the issue. Cal. Evid. Code § 996(a). 22 Any surveillance video capturing the accident will assist Defendant and Plaintiff in evaluating the 23 case and preparing for trial. It will also potentially assist the trier of fact. California law thus supports 24 Defendants’ position, and Defendants are entitled to conduct discovery to determine the nature, extent, 25 and cause of Plaintiff’s alleged injures and damages. Furthermore, Plaintiff has placed liability at issue 26 and, even if there was a any privacy interest, it has been waived. These grounds are sufficient to have 27 Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas denied. 28 /// 3 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 B. The Records are Directly Relevant to the Litigation and Outweigh Any Privilege 2 Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010 provides in part that “any party may obtain discovery regarding any 3 matter” so long as the discovery is “relevant to the subject matter involved” and is “either is itself 4 admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 5 Even if the privilege was not waived, which it was, Defendants are entitled to the records sought because 6 the right of privacy is qualified, not absolute. In each case, the court balances the right of privacy against 7 the need for discovery and the related public interest in obtaining just results in litigation. Britt v. San 8 Diego Unified Port Dist. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856. 9 The purpose of the discovery statutes is “to educate the parties concerning their claims and 10 defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial.” Emerson Electric Co. v. 11 Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1107. To accomplish that purpose, the Court cited the landmark 12 case of Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, for the proposition that the discovery 13 statutes must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper in light 14 of strong public policies. The rule of disclosure in discovery is “not only one of liberal interpretation, but 15 one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations 16 clearly prohibit it.” Id. at 378. 17 As stated in Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1249: 18 The expansive scope of discovery is a deliberate attempt to take the game 19 element out of trial preparation and to do away with the sporting theory of litigation – namely, surprise at trial. One key legislative purpose of the 20 discovery statute is to educate the parties concerning their claims and 21 defenses so as to encourage settlements and to expedite and facilitate trial. The discovery procedures are also designed to minimize the 22 opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness. Consistent with these purposes, our Supreme Court has often stated that discovery statutes 23 are to be construed broadly in favor of disclosure, so as to uphold the right to discovery whenever possible. 24 [Emphasis added; internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.] 25 On occasion, a litigant’s privacy interests may have to give way to their opponent’s right to a fair 26 trial. Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 842; see also, Palay v. Superior Court (1993) 18 27 28 Cal.App.4th 919, 933 (“The state has enough of an interest in discovering the truth in legal proceedings, 4 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 that it may compel disclosure of confidential material.”) Even sensitive, personal information may be 2 ordered disclosed if it is shown to be potentially directly relevant and essential to a fair determination of 3 the action. Alch, 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1431-1432. 4 Here, video of the accident at issue is directly relevant in this case because liability is disputed. 5 The records sought will show how the accident occurred. Accordingly, no privilege applies to the records 6 because Plaintiff’s privacy interest is outweighed by the need for discovery and the related public interest 7 in obtaining just results in litigation. 8 C. No Expectation of Privacy 9 The Subpoena seeks surveillance video “at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561” 10 which a public street, at which Plaintiff thus has no expectation of privacy. See, Vo v. City of Garden 11 Grove, 115 Cal. App. 4th 425, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257 (4th Dist. 2004) (court held that a person sitting in an 12 internet cafe did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would defeat a city ordinance 13 permitting video surveillance in an effort to combat criminal gang activity) The Vo court observed: "With 14 the near ubiquitous use of video surveillance in retail establishments, at automated bank teller machines 15 and at road intersections, it is difficult to imagine. . . that the customer's expectation of privacy is 16 reasonable under the circumstances." Id at 450. Here, the circumstances are similar, with Defendant only 17 seeking surveillance video of public areas. The Court should enforce compliance with the Subpoena. 18 D. The Court Should Enforce -- Instead of Quash -- the Subpoenas 19 20 The Court has authority to make an order directing compliance with a subpoena. Code of Civil 21 Procedure § 1987.1(a). Plaintiff seeks to prevent discovery about the accident in question. As set forth 22 above, Defendant is entitled to such discovery as it may impact issues of causation and liability for which 23 Plaintiff is seeking significant damages. Plaintiff should not be allowed to preclude discovery of such 24 directly relevant evidence. As a result, the Court can and should enforce compliance with the subject 25 subpoenas. 26 E. Plaintiff’s Failure to Object or Meet and Confer Should Preclude Relief, Sanctions 27 Considering this entire motion was totally unnecessary and very likely could have been avoided 28 with the courtesy of a five-minute phone call or email, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions should be denied 5 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 in its entirety. Plaintiff fails to explain why motion practice was necessary. The closest thing to an 2 explanation offered by Plaintiff is: “Due to the exigency of the deadline with which to file the motion to 3 quash, the reasonably likelihood that the subpoenas could not be withdrawn or modified prior to the time 4 for production, and the inherent private contents of those records, Plaintiff PENA filed this Motion to 5 Quash. See Declaration of Angelo F. Campano, Paragraph 4.” 6 However, considering the Subpoena was served on March 28, 2024, and this Motion was filed on 7 April 19, 2024, how a period of 22 days to act can be construed as “exigency” remains a mystery. 8 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing arguments and authorities, Defendants respectfully request that the Court 11 deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena in its entirety and issue an Order that fully compels 12 production in accordance with the subpoenas. To the extent the language in the Subpoena needs to be 13 edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations. 14 Dated: May 10, 2024 15 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR 16 17 BY:________________________________ 18 JOHN K. PAULSON 19 PETRA RADUSIC JASON AHDOOT 20 Attorneys for Defendant, PATRICIA HOBIN 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 2 I, Jason Ahdoot, declare: 3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in California and a Senior Counsel at Ford, Walker, Haggerty 4 & Behar, attorneys of record for Defendants in the above captioned matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this Declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would competently 5 testify thereto. 6 2. Based on a review of the pleadings, this matter arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred 7 on 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd and Tucker Road, in Tehachapi CA, on July 26, 2023. 8 3. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint for damages in Kern County Superior Court on October 25, 2023. 9 4. Liability is disputed; it is believed that a surveillance camera captured the accident. 10 5. As part of her investigation and preparation for trial, on March 28, 2024, Defendant issued a 11 Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, which reads: “Records to be produced 12 pertaining to David Pena, DOB: June 23, 1978, SS# UNK, from any and all dates. Include surveillance 13 videos for 7/26/2023 at 1002 West Tehachapi Blvd, Tehachapi, CA 93561” (the “Subpoena”). 6. Without objecting to the Subpoena, or attempting to meet and confer, Plaintiff filed this Motion 14 to Quash. 15 7. It has come to Defendant’s attention that the Subpoena appears to contain a typo, specifically, the 16 text “from any and all dates” which contradicts the specific request for “surveillance videos for 17 7/26/2023” was inadvertently included; Accordingly, to the extent the language in the Subpoena needs 18 to be edited, Defendant is willing to make accommodations, but the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion 19 to quash the subpoenas and allow production of surveillance video. 20 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was 21 executed this 10th day of May 2024, at Long Beach, California. 22 23 ___________________________ 24 Jason Ahdoot, Declarant 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 PENA vs. HOBIN 19923-265 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 4 ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 5 I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the 6 within entitled action; my business address is: One World Trade Center, Twenty-Seventh Floor, Long 7 Beach, California 90831-2700 8 On May 10, 2024, I served the within: DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; 9 DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT on the interested parties in said action, 10 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 11 ☒ (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) A copy of said document(s) was delivered by electronic transmission to the addressee(s) pursuant to C.C.P.1010.6 I caused the documents to be sent from 12 mgarzone@fwhb.com to the person(s) at the electronic notification addresses listed below. 13 14 On May 13, 2024, I served the within: DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION 15 OF JASON AHDOOT on the interested parties in said action, 16 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 17 ☒(BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of documents 18 and correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, on the above date the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing following the ordinary business 19 practices of our office. This results in the envelope being delivered to the United States Postal Service in Long Beach, California, that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid. 20 Executed on May 10, 2024, at Long Beach, California. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true 22 and correct. 23 24 ___________________________________ Mary Garzone 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT 1 SERVICE LIST 2 PENA vs. HOBIN 19923-265 3 4 Superior Court of CA, County of Kern Case No: BCV-23-103586 5 6 Angelo F. Campano, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 CAMPANO LAW GROUP, David Pena A Professional Corporation 8 41301 12th Street West, Suite G Palmdale, California 93551 9 10 Telephone: (661) 945-5300 Fax: (661) 945-5310 11 Email: acampano@campanolaw.com (Hard Copies via mail also) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT PATRICIA HOBIN’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED MARCH 28, 2024; DECLARATION OF JASON AHDOOT