RAJU, et al. vs HAYS, et al.

25CV107517: RAJU, et al. vs HAYS, et al. 07/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records Served on Google LLC; filed by James Lee Hays (Defendant); Jannet Hays (Defendant) CRS# 669361690995 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 06/17/2026 Keith Fong

The Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records Served on Google LLC filed by James Lee Hays, Jannet Hays on 03/05/2026 is Denied.

Defendants’ Motion to Quash is DENIED

This is a neighbor dispute in Livermore, California. Plaintiffs Rekha Mandya Raju and Supreeth Shivakanth (“Plaintiffs”) complain that Defendants James Lee Hays and Jannet Hays (“Defendants”) built an oversized fence and installed wind chimes and security lights. Defendants cross-complain that Plaintiffs hired an unlicensed contractor to tear out a shared boundary fence without notice, damaging their property. What should have remained a neighborly and cordial conversation over the back fence has instead generated a complaint and amended complaint, a cross-complaint, a demurrer, a motion to strike, a motion for contempt, two third-party subpoenas to Google LLC, and the present motion to quash. The volume of motion practice in this case, now on its fifth round, has far exceeded what the underlying claims warrant.

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records served on Google LLC on February 16, 2026. Plaintiffs served two subpoenas on Google LLC. The first subpoena, issued January 7, 2026, sought account information associated with the Gmail address ty827148@gmail.com, which Plaintiffs believe was used to send an allegedly defamatory email to one of the Plaintiffs’ employer. Google responded by identifying an associated Android device ID but declined to name the device owner. Plaintiffs then served a second subpoena on February 16, 2026, seeking the identity and account activity of all persons who purchased or used that Android device. The motion to quash targets the second subpoena.

A motion to quash a deposition subpoena must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled. Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5), (c). Defendants failed to submit the required separate statement. That omission presents a sufficient basis to deny the motion in the court's discretion. (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893