Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC640212    Hearing Date: March 09, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jose Alatorre (“Alatorre”) and Indel Engineering, Inc. (“Indel”) (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision on February 5, 2016. Alatorre was driving in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Now, Indel moves for a protective order to preclude the deposition of its Person Most Knowledgeable regarding the hiring, retention, and supervision of Alatorre. Plaintiff has filed a notice stating that he does not oppose the motion. Therefore, the motion is granted. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: March 9, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC640212    Hearing Date: February 27, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Jose Alatorre (“Alatorre”) and Marina Shipyard (collectively, “Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision on February 5, 2016. Alatorre was driving in the course and scope of his employment with Marina Shipyard at the time of the accident. During the course of his investigation, Plaintiff’s counsel discovered that Alatorre maintained a Twitter account that was not “locked,” meaning that any member of the public could review Alatorre’s posts. Among other posts, Alatorre discussed his marijuana use at work, and some of those posts appear to be contemporaneous with the accident. Plaintiff issued a subpoena to Twitter to receive authenticated copies of these posts. Defendants move to quash the subpoena, arguing that the subpoena violates Alatorre’s privacy interests, which Plaintiff opposes. The motion is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) In ruling on a motion for protective order, “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).)

DISCUSSION

In this case, Plaintiff has determined that Alatorre uses the Twitter account @big_jokes_lbc. (See Declaration of Alaa A. Yashin, ¶¶ 5-8.) Alatorre has a right to privacy, meaning that the Court cannot order disclosure of the records of that activity unless it determines that disclosure serves a compelling interest. (See Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856.)

The Court has considered the probative value of these posts and finds that disclosure serves a compelling interest. The public postings reference Alatorre’s marijuana use, including while Alatorre was at work. (See Declaration of Alaa A.Yashin, Exh. B.) This is relevant for three reasons. First, if Alatorre was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, that evidence is relevant to establishing his liability. Second, in his discovery responses, Alatorre denied marijuana use within 24 hours of the accident. (See Declaration of Alaa A.Yashin, Exhibit A.) The records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter within the two-day period surrounding the accident appear to be relevant to impeach Alatorre’s denial of marijuana use. Third, any records of Alatorre’s activity on Twitter about use of marijuana in the workplace are relevant to whether Marina Shipyard negligently entrusted the vehicle at issue to Alatorre.

The Court finds that this compelling interest outweighs any privacy interest by Alatorre. First and foremost, Alatorre took no steps to protect his posts from any member of the public (including Plaintiff’s counsel) from reading them. In other words, Alatorre apparently did not “lock” his account to ensure that only his friends would read his posts. In that sense, Alatorre made a conscious decision to publicize his posts to the entire internet. Alatorre cannot publicize his posts indiscriminately and then claim a privacy interest in those same posts. Moreover, the subpoena is narrowly tailored to obtain the relevant documents. Finally, if the records are not relevant or if the probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice, the trial court can exclude them pursuant to a motion in limine. Discoverability and admissibility are two separate issues.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is a compelling interest requiring disclosure of the tweets at issue that is not outweighed by Alatorre’s privacy interests. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to quash is denied. Defendants shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 27, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC640212    Hearing Date: February 19, 2020    Dept: 32

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 32

Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) moves to deem the matters specified in the Requests for Admission, Set Two (“RFAs”), which were served upon Defendant Jose Antonio Alatorre (“Defendant”) on July 18, 2019. Because they were served by mail, verified responses were due on or before August 22, 2019. There were delays in responding because Defendant resides outside of the United States. Defendant filed a motion for a protective order seeking additional time to respond to discovery. The Court denied the motion as moot because Plaintiff agreed to extend the deadline to November 28, 2019. Defendant provided verified responses to the RFAs before the hearing, so the motion is denied as moot except with respect to sanctions.

Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the amount of $1,110 against Defendant and counsel-of-record. The Court finds that the conduct in this case constitutes an abuse of the discovery process, warranting sanctions. Defendant had over four months to respond to the RFAs and failed to do so. Moreover, Defendant’s verification page is dated November 7, 2019. (Declaration of Benjamin A. Sampson, Exh. #2.) Yet, the responses were not served until December 10, 2019. (Ibid.) Even then, the responses were served by mail rather than personally or by overnight delivery, suggesting that Defendant did not move with alacrity in fulfilling his discovery obligations. More important, Defendant’s responses were verified three weeks before the deadline, so the failure to satisfy the stipulated deadline of November 28, 2019, is inexcusable. Therefore, sanctions are warranted, and the amount requested by Plaintiff is fair and reasonable under the circumstances considering the work undertaken in this case.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to deem the RFAs to have been admitted is denied as moot except with respect to sanctions. The Court orders Defendant and Defendant’s counsel, jointly and severally, to pay Plaintiff sanctions in the amount of $1,110 within thirty (30) days of notice of this order. Plaintiff shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.

DATED: February 19, 2020 ___________________________

Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: BC640212    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: 5

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 5

Plaintiff Christopher Alighire (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Jose Alatorre (“Defendant Alatorre”), who was driving in the course of his employment for Marina Shipyard d/b/a Indel Engineering (“Marina Shipyard”) (collectively “Defendants”). Defendants filed a protective order seeking additional time to respond to discovery requests. This motion is denied as moot because Plaintiff has agreed to extend the deadline for Defendants’ responses to November 28, 2019. Although Defendants technically can re-file this motion after that date, the Court reminds the parties that it expects them to work collaboratively and to be reasonable in order to avoid motions on issues that the parties should be able to resolve themselves. The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.

DATED: November 8, 2019 ___________________________

Hon. Stephen I. Goorvitch

Judge of the Superior Court