On 02/01/2018 PETRONILA GONZALEZ filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability lawsuit against NUTRIBULLET LEAN LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are CHRISTOPHER K. LUI and DANIEL M. CROWLEY. The case status is Other.
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
CHRISTOPHER K. LUI
DANIEL M. CROWLEY
DOES 1 TO 50
NUTRIBULLET LEAN LLC
NUTRIBULLET LLC (DOE 1)
NUTRIBULLET LLC DOE 1
THE DOMINGUEZ FIRM
KANAREK MARTIN JOEL
TAILLIEU OLIVIER ALAIN
YOKA & SMITH LLP
YOKA WALTER MICHAEL
DEMETRUIS CHRISTINE CAROL
BYRGE KIMBERLY A.
MARTIN R BRYAN
MCCANN DAVID THOMAS
1/27/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER RE: NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT)
12/9/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL SUBPOENA; JURY T...)
9/23/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (JURY TRIAL)
8/12/2019: Reply - REPLY NURTIBULLET'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9
8/12/2019: Reply - REPLY NURTIBULLET'S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5
8/12/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 PRECLUDE ANY MENTION OF DR. DAVID XU AND HIS CRIMINAL CONDUCT
8/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO 8. FUTURE DAMAGES
7/29/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT NUTRIBULLET, LLCS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 TO PRECLUDE MENTION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS REFERRED TO MEDICAL PROVIDERS BY HER ATTORNEY; DECLARATION OF
7/11/2019: Witness List
7/11/2019: Trial Brief
7/11/2019: Statement of the Case
6/25/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7
6/25/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3
6/25/2019: Motion in Limine - MOTION IN LIMINE MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1
6/25/2018: PLAINTIFFS STATEMENT OF DAMAGES
5/8/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
2/1/2018: SUMMONS -
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Petronila Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 2:10 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order) of 04/21/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash (Plaintiff's Trial Subpoena) - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 1:25 PM in Department 28, Daniel M. Crowley, Presiding; Court OrderRead MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Court Order Re: Notice of Settlement) of 01/27/2020); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Nutribullet Lean, LLC (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPartial Dismissal (with Prejudice); Filed by Plaintiff/PetitionerRead MoreRead Less
DocketREQUEST FOR DISMISSALRead MoreRead Less
DocketAmendment to Complaint; Filed by Petronila Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketANSWER OF NUTIUBULLET LEAN, LLC TO COMPLATNT OF PETRONILA GONZALEZRead MoreRead Less
DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Petronila Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: 1. PRODUCTS LIABILITY -STRICT LIABILITY ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by Petronila Gonzalez (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC692385 Hearing Date: December 09, 2019 Dept: 4A
Motion to Quash Subpoena
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. opposing papers were filed.
On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Petronila Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Nutribullet Lean, LLC, who subsequently represented itself as Defendant Nutribullet, LLC, (“Defendant”) alleging strict and negligent products liability and negligence for injuries sustained when removing an extractor blade from a Nutribullet on December 9, 2017.
On October 21, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to quash a trial subpoena pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.
Trial is set for December 9, 2019.
Defendant asks the Court to quash a trial subpoena issued to non-party Boris Treyzon for: (1) seeking documents that Mr. Tryzon is not qualified to certify, (2) being overbroad, (3) being designed to harass, vex, and annoy Defendant, and (4) seeking privileged documents.
Defendant also asks the Court to impose $2,661.25 in sanctions against Plaintiff and her counsel of record for their abuse of the discovery process.
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) states, “[i]f 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 reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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 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.”
“[U]pon motion reasonably made by the party, judges may rule upon motions for quashing, modifying or compelling compliance with, subpoenas.” (Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-583.)
In making an order pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, “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).)
On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff served a trial subpoena on Boris Treyzon. (Byrge Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) Mr. Treyzon is a partner at Abir, Cohen, Treyzon & Salo, LLP, which is currently litigating numerous cases against Defendant in state and federal court. (Byrge Decl., ¶ 4.) The subpoena requests the following documents: “1) All videos and documents relating to pressure, heat, safety or performance testing of a Nutribullet blender. 2) All videos and documents relating to pressure, heat, safety or performance testing of a Nutribullet disseminated to any news media outlet, including Fox Los Angeles. 3) All videos in your possession that depict a Nutribullet exploding.” (Byrge Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.) a number of arguments as to why this subpoena should be quashed.
First, Defendant argues that Mr. Treyzon is not the custodian or a person qualified to certify the records sought. The Court disagrees. The documents requested are not tailored specifically to those that were previously produced to Mr. Treyzon in another action, as was the case in Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1042.) As such, the subpoena cannot be quashed because Mr. Treyzon is not qualified to certify the records sought.
Second, Defendant argues that the subpoena is overbroad because it does not name specific documents and it encompasses 17 different models of Nutribullets with varying capabilities and purposes. The Court agrees, in part. Plaintiff does not need to name documents requested. Rather, Plaintiff may do as Plaintiff did in describing documents requested. However, the Court finds that evidence relating to the 16 other models of Nutribullets not at issue in this case is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence. There is no evidence presented to the Court showing that all Nutribullet models share similar components that Plaintiff alleges were defective in the Nutribullet that injured her on December 9, 2017. As such, documents requested pertaining to models of Nutribullets other than the model that caused Plaintiff’s injuries are not discoverable.
Third, Defendant argues the categories of documents requested have no purpose other than to harass, vex, and annoy Defendant. The Court disagrees. The documents requested that pertain to the model of Nutribullet that injured Plaintiff are relevant to show that the occurrence on December 9, 2017 was not the only explosion. This evidence may show Defendant’s knowledge of the defective product. As such, this subpoena has a proper purpose.
Fourth, Defendant argues the documents requested are privileged either by the attorney-client privilege or as being trade secrets. Defendant has not demonstrated that all the documents sought fall into these protected categories. To the extent that some of the documents sought constitute communications protected from disclosure by Defendant’s attorney-client privilege, Defendant should identify those documents and demonstrate on a privilege log the basis for its assertion of privilege. See Evid. Code § 953, subd. (a).) The documents requested may also be protected as trade secrets, but Defendant has not attempted, let alone made, the requisite showing that the documents requested are trade secrets. (See Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1393.) As such, the Court finds the requested documents are discoverable, unless they properly fall within the attorney-client privilege and are listed on a properly produced privilege log.
The Court finds Defendant’s request for sanctions is unjust. This is because the subpoena is valid insofar as it relates to the model of Nutribullet that injured Plaintiff.
The motion is DENIED.
Sanctions are DENIED.
The Court finds it in the interest of justice to issue a protective order limiting Plaintiff’s subpoena issued to Boris Treyzon on August 2, 2019 to the specified categories of documents only as they relate to the model of Nutribullet that injured Plaintiff. are listed on a properly produced privilege log that identifies each document and demonstrates the basis for Defendant’s assertion of privilege.
Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.