Infinity Insurance Company v. Astri Matallana Castillo

Proposition 65 with respect to the Products, without unduly impeding Defendant's entire business. Defendant can safely assume that if it does not comply with the law, its products are being monitored, and it may be forced to pay additional civil penalties and attorneys' fees. (Id. P. 20.)

Also, because all settlements and consent judgments are public record, this Proposed Judgment will likely provide other companies with the incentive to ensure future compliance with Proposition 65. (Ibid.)

Additionally, public policy favors settlement and, if approved, will save judicial resources. Moreover, approval and entry of the Consent Judgment will trigger the "Effective Date" of the Proposed Judgment and require Defendant to comply with the no-sale, reformulation, or warning requirements, thus providing the citizens of California with the desired equitable relief without delay. (Id. P. 21.)

The Court finds the Proposed Judgment provides for warnings in compliance with Prop 65, the civil penalty provided for reasonable per Health & Safety Code Sec.25249.7(b)(2) and the attorney's fees included as part of the Consent Judgment are reasonable.

The civil penalty amount is reasonable considering the amount of the chemical detected, the extent of exposures to the chemical through distribution and retail sales throughout California, the sufficient economic effect the penalty and fees will have on Defendant, Defendant's apparently lack of willingness to take immediate action to reformulate the Covered Products or provide warnings on the products, and the amount of the penalty as a sufficient deterrent against future violations.

The Proposed Judgment is thus just and serves the public interest. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion to approve and enter consent judgment is granted.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion to approve and enter consent judgment is GRANTED. Dated this 25th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court |

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner/Insurer, vs. ASTRI MATALLANA CASTILLO, Respondents/Insured. |))))))))))) | CASE NO.: 26STCP00757 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO OBTAIN CELLULAR PHONE RECORDS FROM THIRD-PARTY OR ENFORCE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA Dept. 733 8:30 a.m. August 25, 2026 |

I. INTRODUCTION

On February 23, 2026, Infinity Insurance Company ("Infinity") filed a petition with the Court for the purpose of issuing subpoenas to witnesses. Infinity Insurance Company is an insurer on a claim submitted by its insured, Astri Matallana Castillo ("Castillo"), for a vehicle theft incident that occurred on November 22, 2025, within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

As part of the claim investigation being conducted by Infinity, the insured is required to produce cell phone records from November 22, 2025 to November 23, 2025, with "push-to-talk" call information and tower site information. Spectrum ("Spectrum"), the insured's cell phone provider, will not release any records without a Subpoena. (Petition, P.P. 1-2.)

On May 19, 2026, Infinity filed the instant motion to obtain cellular phone records from Spectrum or alternatively, to enforce the deposition subpoena served on Spectrum.

No opposition was filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) states, in relevant part: 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. . . may make an order . . . 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 Civ. Proc. Sec. 1987.1(a).)

There is no meet and confer requirement in section 1987.1. There is also no requirement for a separate statement when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(b)(1).)

Furthermore, there is no requirement for a showing of good cause for production of documents in connection with a deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 2020.510(b); Terry v. SLICO (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, 358.)

The motion shall be accompanied by a declaration showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute between the party requesting the personal records and the consumer or the consumer's attorney. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1985.3, subd. (g).)

III. DISCUSSION

Infinity moves this Court for an order to obtain cellular phone records from Verizon (Spectrum is a Mobile Virtual Network Operator that utilizes Verizon's network) including push to talk, text message, data usage, call and tower site information for the phone number (661) 492-1350, the number for Petitioner's insured, Castillo, for the period of November 22, 2025, through November 23, 2025.

Infinity seeks the production of these cellular phone records on the grounds that: (1) the documents sought are relevant to evaluate the claim submitted by Infinity's insured, Castillo (theft claim that occurred on or about November 22, 2025, (2) Castillo has agreed to voluntarily produce the documents sought and signed a consent form as to same, and (3) Verizon has advised Infinity that a subpoena with Castillo's signed consent is insufficient to release the requested cell phone records, and a court order will be necessary.

Here, Castillo entered into a vehicle liability insurance contract with Infinity, which provides that Castillo agree to cooperate with Infinity regarding the investigation of any claim made for coverage. (Colman Decl., P. 4.)

Verizon then sent Infinity a response and objected to the compliance of the deposition subpoena, stating that " The documents/information you are requesting require a court order." (Id., Ex. C.)

The Court finds that production of the requested records necessary to allow Infinity to assess proper coverage pertaining to the investigation into Castillo's claims vehicle theft incident. (See Gilbert v. Infinity Ins. Co. (C.D. Cal. 2016) 186 F. Supp. 3d 1075, 1086 ["Defendant required the cellphone records in order to determine if there was coverage for the damage sustained to Plaintiff's truck, and Plaintiff's failure to provide them constitutes failure to cooperate."].)

Thus, the Court finds that Infinity has demonstrated good cause to compel Verizon's compliance with the deposition subpoena.

Infinity has served the instant motion upon both Castillo and Verizon. The instant motion is also timely, as Infinity served the subpoena upon Verizon on March 20, 2026 and the motion was filed on May 19, 2026. (Colman Decl., P. 7.)

The Court lastly notes that the instant motion is unopposed by either Castillo or Verizon. Castillo has actually signed and notarized a Consent to disclose and release the record. (Id., P. 7, Ex. B.)

The Court grants Infinity's motion.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Infinity's motion to obtain cellular records from Verizon or alternatively, to enforce deposition subpoena is GRANTED. Dated this 25th day of August 2026 | | | Hon. Gary D. Roberts Judge of the Superior Court | | Home -->)" -->