Notice Of Motion And Motion To Quash Deposition Subpoena For Business Records
Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Thursday, September 25, 2025, Line 10. PLAINTIFF TERESA RIVAS' Motion To Quash Deposition Subpoena For Business Records.
The court grants Plaintiff Teresa Rivas's motion to quash in part and denies it in part. The court "must balance the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts against the privacy interests of persons subject to discovery." (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 843.) Although plaintiffs implicitly waive some of their right to privacy, the waiver is not unlimited. (Davis v. Superior Ct. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014 (holding that an implicit waiver of the right of privacy will encompass discovery "directly relevant" to the plaintiff's claims).) "[P]laintiffs . . . may not withhold information which relates to any physical or mental condition which they have put in issue by bringing th[e] lawsuit." (Britt v. Superior Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 864.)
Here, Defendants have agreed to narrow their requests to exclude any gynecological, OBGYN, sexual health, and mental health treatment. (Reyes Decl. para. 16.) Defendants have also limited the request to the 10 years prior to the incident through the present. (Nelson Decl. Ex. 3.) With those limitations, the records requested are directly relevant to Plaintiff's claim and do not invade her privacy. Rivas's desire for a first look appears based on the fear that the providers will disregard defendants' limitations.
Rivas presents no evidence that the fear is anything other than speculative. The motion to quash is denied in its entirety, conditioned on Defendant's adherence to the limitations it has placed on the subpoenaed material, to wit, that the subpoenas do not seek disclosure of any gynecological, OBGYN, sexual health, or mental health treatment and are limited by date as set out above. The court does not order the joint-look agreement that defendant proposes but nothing in this order precludes the parties from using that procedure.
Plaintiff Rivas's motion for sanctions is denied.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing. Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/CVA) | |