On 10/06/2017 SHIZI PU filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against KEJIA ZHANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
STEPHEN I. GOORVITCH
DOES 1 TO 100
IODICE MARK L.
GRANDY JAMES LAWTON
COTE HEATHER GREEN
COTE HEATHER G.
2/22/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SHIZI PU
2/22/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
2/28/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE
4/24/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER RE STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE
7/9/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF HANDLING ATTORNEY
9/19/2018: PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF POSTING JURY FEES
10/17/2018: Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint
12/18/2018: Motion for Summary Adjudication
1/24/2019: Motion re:
5/30/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
5/31/2019: Motion for Summary Judgment
11/3/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/6/2017: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETC
Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Motion; Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Separate Statement; Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Jury Trial - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 10:00 AM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - StipulationRead MoreRead Less
at 1:30 PM in Department 5, Stephen I. Goorvitch, Presiding; Hearing on Motion - Other (to Specially Set the Hearings on Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication, or in the Alternative, to Continue Trial) - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Stipulation and Order (Joint and Mutual Stipulation by all Parties to Continue Trial and Related Dates); Filed by SHIZI PU (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Opposition (Plaintiff Helen Chow's Opposition and Response to Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial); Filed by SHIZI PU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Motion re: (Motion to Specially Set Hearing on Defendant's Motion for Summary Adjudication or Continue Trial); Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice (of Order Re Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint); Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Answer; Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF RELATED CASERead MoreRead Less
Notice of Related Case; Filed by KEJIA ZHANG (Defendant); XIUJU ZHOU (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF SHIZI PURead MoreRead Less
CIVIL DEPOSITRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by SHIZI PU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. NEGLIGENCE ;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by SHIZI PU (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC678577 Hearing Date: January 09, 2020 Dept: SEC
SHIZU PU v. KEJIA ZHANG, et al.
CASE NO.: BC678577 (consolidated with BC692392)
JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES
Defendant Kejia Zhang’s motion to quash is granted as to Nos. 1-5 and 10-11, and denied as to Nos. 6-9 and 12-15.
Plaintiff Helen Chow’s request for sanctions is denied.
Moving Party to give Notice.
On February 1, 2018, Plaintiff Helen Chow (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint (in BC692392) against Defendants Kejia Zhang (“Zhang”) and Xiuju Zhou (“Zhou”) (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of an alleged automobile accident that occurred on August 5, 2017. Plaintiff alleged Zhang was driving the vehicle involved in the accident and Zhou owned the vehicle involved in the accident. Plaintiff alleged Defendants negligently owned, operated, maintained, entrusted, and controlled their vehicle so as to allow it to collide with the guard rail and light pole and, as a result, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages.
On February 22, 2018, Defendants filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint (in BC692392).
On April 12, 2018, the Court consolidated BC692392 and BC678577, with BC678577 as the lead case.
C.C.P. §1987.1(a) provides, as follows: “If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, 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.”
Zhang moves for an order quashing or modifying Plaintiff’s subpoena for production of records issued to the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”). Zhang argues the subpoena is overbroad, irrelevant, violates Defendant’s right to privacy, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Plaintiff issued a Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to the DMV on April 29, 2019. Zhang served an objection to the subpoena, asserting the following objections: (1) relevance; (2) overbroad; (3) burdensome; and (4) harassing. (Declaration of Grandy ¶¶2-3; Exhibits A-B.)
Plaintiff, relying on Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 263, argues Defendant waived the right to object to the subpoena based on privacy because “no objection based on ‘privacy’ was asserted in the original objection…” (Opposition, pg. 11.) However, Plaintiff’s reliance on Scottsdale Ins. Co. is misplaced. The case is distinguishable. Scottsdale Ins. Co. did not involve a motion to quash or a waiver of the right to privacy. (See Scottsdale Ins. Co. at 274 (“We conclude that failure to include an objection expressly based upon attorney-client privilege in the initial response results in waiver of the attorney-client privilege.”).) Moreover, privacy rights are constitutional in nature and arguably “cannot be waived by a ‘technical shortfall.’” (Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial §8:319.2.) (See Heda v. Superior Court (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 525, 529 (“Plaintiff contends, however, that defendant has waived any privacy rights by objecting to interrogatories only on relevancy grounds and by disclosing his medical condition to plaintiff. We find no waiver. [¶] Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories, propounded with no introduction or explanation, asked defendant to state what physical ailments he suffered which are life-impairing or potentially life-threatening, and asked defendant to state the latest prognosis from his doctors. Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (d), was not mentioned. Defendant objected on the ground of relevance, an obvious objection under the circumstances. Plaintiff now claims that failure also to object on privacy grounds forever waives defendant's privacy rights. Plaintiff cites no persuasive authority for such a draconian rule. We reject plaintiff's contention.”).)
Zhang argues Plaintiff failed to timely serve a Notice to Consumer prior to issuing the subpoena. (Z-SS, pg. 4.) Zhang contends “Plaintiff served the subpoena on Defendant by mail on April 29, 2019” and, according to the copy of the subpoena provided to Zhang, “the subpoena was issued to the custodian of records the same day, when the earliest date Plaintiff is permitted to serve the custodian is May 9, 2019.” (Z-SS, pg. 4.) (See C.C.P. §1985.3(b)(3).) However, Plaintiff submitted evidence Zhang was served with a Notice to Consumer via mail on April 29, 2019, and the subpoena was served on the DMV (via personal delivery) on May 14, 2019. (Declaration of Borrelli ¶¶5-6; Exhibits 1-3.)
Requests Nos. 1-5 and 10-11
Requests Nos. 1-5 and 10-11 seek production of the following: (1) a copy of the complete file and records of the DMV relating to driver Zhang; (2) all documents relating to any citation, warning, ticket, suspension or other adverse action or information relating to Zhang; (3) all documents relating to the current licensing status of Zhang; (4) all documents relating to the past licensing status of Zhang as a driver (without limitation as relates to any prior learner’s permits or applications relating thereto); (5) a copy of the complete driving record of Zhang; (6) all documents that relate to how Zhang performed on any testing administered by the DMV including, without limitation, any driving tests or vision tests; and (7) all documents that relate to any restrictions on the license of driver Zhang including, without limitation, as it relates to corrective lenses. (Declaration of Grandy ¶2; Exhibit A.)
The Requests are overbroad. Plaintiff did not limit the Requests in scope and/or time. The Requests are so overbroad they include documents that are not relevant to the instant action and/or documents protected by the right to privacy. For example, the Requests are broad enough to include documents pertaining to unrelated matters, “records related to post-accident matters, [Zhang’s] current license status, and other events and information that are wholly unrelated to this litigation, Plaintiff’s claim of negligence, and Plaintiff’s claim of personal injuries.” (Z-SS, pgs. 2-3.)
Based on the foregoing, Zhang’s motion to quash is granted as to Nos. 1-5 and 10-11.
Requests Nos. 13-15
Requests Nos. 13-15 seek production of the following: (1) a copy of any and all information and materials given by the DMV to drivers relating to any vision or corrective lenses restrictions applicable to drivers; (2) a copy of any and all information and materials given by the DMV to drivers relating to “provisional” license status; and (3) a copy of any and all information and materials given by the DMV to drivers under the age of 18 years old.
Zhang’s objections to Requests Nos. 13-15 are without merit. Zhang did not establish the Requests are overbroad, burdensome, or harassing, and/or the Requests seek information that is not relevant to this action. Zhang also did not establish the Requests implicate the right to privacy.
Zhang appears to concede the objections are without merit. In the notice of motion, Zhang requested the Court, in the alternative, “modify Plaintiff’s subpoena to permit the production of documents as to Requests 13, 14, and 15 only.” (Notice of Motion, pg. 2.) (Emphasis Added.)
Based on the foregoing, Zhang’s motion to quash is denied as to Nos. 13-15.
Requests Nos. 6-9 and 12
Requests Nos. 6-9 and 12 seek production of the following: (1) all documents that relate to the Traffic Collision Report (“TCR”) pertaining to the subject incident; (2) all documents contained in the DMV records that relate to the subject automobile accident; (3) any and all documents that relate to the “DS 427 driver re-evaluation” referenced on page 7, line 34, which the author of the TCR stated was mailed to Zhang; (4) any and all documents that relate to any subsequent actions regarding Zhang which relate to the “DS 427 driver re-evaluation;” and (5) all documents relating to “RSTR CORR LENS” designation which appears on the Driver’s License for Zhang. (Declaration of Grandy ¶2; Exhibit A.)
Zhang’s objections to Requests Nos. 6-9 and 12 without merit. Zhang did not establish the Requests are overbroad, burdensome, or harassing, and/or the Requests seek information that is not relevant to this action. The Requests are limited in scope and time by virtue of the fact that they seek documents related to the subject incident and Zhang’s license (at the time of the incident). Zhang also did not establish he has an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances” and the “threatened intrusion is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Even assuming, arguendo, a balancing of interests is required, Zhang’s right to privacy is outweighed by compelling interests, specifically “seeking the truth in court proceedings” and “ensuring those injured by the actionable conduct of others receive full redress of those injuries.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1071 (disapproved on other grounds in Williams at 557).)
Based on the foregoing, Zhang’s motion to quash is denied as to Nos. 6-9 and 12.
Zhang’s motion to quash subpoena is granted as to Nos. 1-5 and 10-11, and denied as to Nos. 6-9 and 12-15.
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied. Sanctions are not warranted in light of the ruling on the motion.