XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
COUNTY OF XXX
XXX,
Plaintiff,
v.
XXX HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and XXX,
Defendants.
Case No.: XXX
NOTICE OF MOTION TO QUASH THE
DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS HOAG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PRESBYTERIAN,
XXX AND TO THEIR ATTORNEY(S) OF RECORD AND SPECIAL
NOTICE TO THIS HONORABLE COURT:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff XXX, at the venue indicated or at
such other venue as the court shall prescribe, will move this Court to Quash the Deposition
Subpoena for Production of Business Records.
This Motion will be based on the grounds that the Defendant has neither complied with
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3 or Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.6, the Deposition Subpoena seeks
irrelevant information, Defendant Herbert Conrad’s name is missing in the record, and there are
pertinent evidence that must be included therein.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
MOTION TO XXX THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
Further, the motion will be based on this Notice of Motion and the Memorandum set
forth below, the Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support, and on the records and file herein, and on
such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motions.
Dated: ___________
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
XXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 3
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
XXX
XXX
Irvine, XXX
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
COUNTY OF XXX
XXX,
Plaintiff,
v.
XXX HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and XXX,
Defendants.
Case No. :XXX
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION
SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF
BUSINESS RECORDS
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF
BUSINESS RECORDS
COMES NOW, Plaintiff XXX pursuant to CCP § 1987.1 files this Motion to
Quash the Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records because:
1. The Subpoenaing Party has failed to follow CCP § 1985.3 and CCP § 1985.6 that
requires the obtaining of a court order or agreement of the parties affected before one
is required to produce the records.
2. The Subpoena seeks the production of irrelevant information.
3. Defendant Herbert Conrad’s name is missing in the record, and
4. There is pertinent evidence that must be included therein.
For the reasons set forth herein and in Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of his Motion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 4
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
to Quash attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to quash the Deposition Subpoena served on Plaintiff.
Dated: ___________
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
XXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 5
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
COUNTY OF XXX
XXX,
Plaintiff,
v.
XXX HOSPITAL
PRESBYTERIAN; and XXX,
Defendants.
Case No.: XXX
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION
SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF
BUSINESS RECORDS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
A. BACKGROUND
The incidence giving rise to this action began when Plaintiff’s mother had been admitted
at the hospital’s facility. On January XXX, Plaintiff went to visit her mother. As Plaintiff was
checking in at the ER at the hospital’s facility, Herbert stole Plaintiff’s phone from the ER lobby
and pushed the Plaintiff until Plaintiff fell.
Consequently, the police officers arrived and took a police report of the incidence.
Interestingly, Herbert gave false information that Plaintiff was the one who punched his face.
Accordingly, Plaintiff was charged and a case was filed against her. During the pendency of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 6
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
said case, the Irvine Police Department refused to give Plaintiff a copy of the Police Report. It
was only when the case was dismissed when the Irvine Police Department gave the Plaintiff the
Report.
The said case was dismissed on May 2021. After the dismissal of the case, the Plaintiff
got the Report. It is also worth noting that during the trial of the said case, the detective, the
attorneys of the hospital, and the head of security personnel at the hospital looked at the hospital
camera footage that recorded the events of January 25, 2020. The Plaintiff tried to subpoena the
hospital for the said footage. However, Plaintiff used the wrong Subpoena. Accordingly, the
hospital’s attorney filed a Motion to quash the said Subpoena on the ground that it violated
HIPPA laws. On or about December 2020, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Quash
the Subpoena. The Plaintiff therefore never got an opportunity to present pertinent evidence of
what really happened on the incident.
Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s mother died during the pendency of the case against Plaintiff.
Further, Plaintiff has been subjected to emotional harm and distress pursuant to the malicious
prosecution and the acts and/or inactions of the Defendants.
On or about September 23, 2021, the Plaintiff conducted a Public Records request. After
the said request, the Plaintiff realized that Michele Hinig, a former detective working on
Plaintiff’s case, maliciously made a declaration and warrant for the Plaintiff’s arrest by filing a
false police report. The said declaration warrant for Plaintiff’s arrest contained notable
irregularities and deficiencies.
Plaintiff filed an action against the Defendants on or about January 25, 2022. In the
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were blameworthy for negligence, malicious
prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On or about August 29, 2022, Plaintiff was served with a “Notice to Consumer or
Employee and Objection”. In the document, the requesting party sought records from Irvine
Police Department. The requesting party also filed a Proof of Service thereof. The requesting
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 7
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
party also filed a Deposition Subpoena, which requested information as follows: “Records from
04/01/2015 to present for the following types of records: any and all photographs relating to the
incident and police reports relating to an altercation on 01/25/2020 involving Ms. Lim and Hoag
Security. Incident Report: 20-01167.”
B. ARGUMENTS
i. The Subpoenaing Party has failed to follow CCP § 1985.3 and CCP § 1985.6
According to CCP § 1985.3(c)(2) and CCP § 1985.6(c)(2), prior to the production of the
records, the subpoenaing party shall “[f]urnish the witness a written authorization to release the
records signed by the consumer or by his or her attorney of record.” Further,
In the instant action, the requesting party has not provided any authorization signed by
Plaintiff or any attorney acting on Plaintiff’s behalf, for the release of information requested in
the subpoena. For this reason, the Deposition Subpoena is defective, and is therefore null and
void.
ii. The Subpoena seeks the production of irrelevant information
A deposition subpoena may be attacked for defects in the form or content as well as if the
information sought is “not within the permissible scope of discovery” or relevance. See Robert I.
Weil et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 8:598 (2013). It is in that regard that the
subpoena can be challenged as being unduly burdensome because it seeks information regarding
topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. See Mattel, Inc. v. Walking
Mountain Prods. (9th Cir. 2003) 353 F.3d 792, 813-14 (holding subpoenas properly quashed
where their overbreadth led the court to conclude that the subpoenas were “served for the
purpose of annoying and harassment and not really for the purpose of getting information”).
In the instant action, the requesting party seeks the production of records from
“04/01/2015 to present”. The incidence that gave rise to Plaintiff’s complaint occurred on
January 25, 2020. It follows; the request for information dating back to 2015 is not only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 8
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
irrelevant but is also meant to harass and overburden the witness. For this reason, the Deposition
Subpoena should be declared invalid, null and void.
iii. Defendant Herbert Conrad’s name is missing in the record
A deposition subpoena may be attacked for defects in the form or content. See Robert I.
Weil et al., Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial § 8:598 (2013).
In this action, the Deposition Subpoena does not include any records relating to
Defendant Herbert Conrad. Plaintiff seeks a production of all records naming Defendant Herbert
Conrad, which record(s) will paint a true picture of the January 25 , 2020 incident.
iv. There is pertinent evidence that must be included therein.
The Deposition Subpoena only seeks the production of photographs of the events that
occurred on January 25 , 2020.
Plaintiff avers that the Deposition Subpoena has missed out on pertinent evidence, which
is required to show the reality of the events that occurred on January 25 , 2020. The said evidence
includes:
1. All Audio recordings of all Irvine police officers at the scene,
2. Names of the police officers, and their badge numbers,
3. The police officers’ supervisor’s names, and their badge numbers,
4. Michele Hinig declaration of arrest and her audio recordings,
5. Audio recording of Plaintiff’s communication with the officer at the hospital on
January 26, 2020, and
6. All email correspondences during the months of January-April 2020 regarding the
incident.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court grant the following Order(s):
1. THAT this Honorable Court quashes the Deposition Subpoena,
2. THAT in the alternative, this Honorable Court issues an Order to modify the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 9
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
Deposition Subpoena, to reflect Plaintiff’s concerns above, and
3. THAT this Court grant any other Order it deems just.
DATED:
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
XXX
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 10
MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing document has been
sent to the Defendant in the following address:
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXXX
XXXX
Attorney for Defendant, Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian
DATED:
___________________________
XXXX
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )