Case Number: BS170239 Hearing Date: December 28, 2018 Dept: 7
TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: CLAIMANT’S MOTION TO QUASH RESPONDENT’S SUBPOENA; GRANTED
On July 20, 2017, Claimant Daniel Geoulla (“Claimant”) filed a Petition to Assign Case Number for Purpose of Discovery Motions against Respondent California Automobile Insurance Company (“Respondent”) relating to an October 3, 2013 automobile accident. On September 6, 2018, Respondent served subpoenas on Mercury Insurance Company and 21st Century Insurance Company seeking insurance records. (Declaration of Mahsa Farid, ¶ 2; Exh. A.) Claimant moves to quash the subpoenas on grounds they violate his right to privacy, are overbroad as worded, and violate work product privilege.
A deposition subpoena may request (1) only the attendance and testimony of a deponent, (2) only the production of business records for copying, or (3) the attendance and testimony, as well as the production of business records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2020.020.) The court, upon motion or the court’s own motion, “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 be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying shall designate the business records to be produced either by specifically describing each individual item or by reasonably particularizing each category of item . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., §2020.410, subd. (a).)
The subpoenas seek any and all non-privileged documents and records contained in the insurance file, including policy agreements, claims, payments made, and medical reports, from February 3, 1999 to present. Respondent argues the items sought have no relevancy to the present claim and violate his right to privacy. Further, insurance files are protected by Insurance Code section 791 et seq. and third-party privacy rights. (See Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 313, 321 [discovery of insurance claim files may be conditioned on obtaining the written consent of the persons to whom the files relate].)
Respondent filed no opposition to this Motion. Accordingly, the Court finds the subpoenas, as worded, are overbroad, as they seek any and all records in insurance claim files from 1999 to present, seek information that violates privacy rights, and Respondent has not shown good cause to discover the records sought.
The Motion to quash is GRANTED.
The court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
The Court finds the subpoenas as worded were made without substantial justification, as they were not narrowly tailored to seek information directly relevant both time and categories of records sought. Monetary sanctions are GRANTED and imposed against Respondent and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $560.00 for two hours at Claimant’s counsel’s hourly rate and the $60.00 filing fee, to be paid within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order.
Moving party to give notice.