| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
HEARING ON PETITION OF NON-PARTY PERSONA IDENTITIES, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery on Thursday, June 26, 2025 Line 7, HEARING ON PETITION OF NON-PARTY PERSONA IDENTITIES, INC.'s FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Per May 30, 2025 Notice of Hearing)
Petitioner Persona Identities, Inc. ("Persona") petition for protective order per CCP 2029.600 is granted.
Plaintiff filed an action in Florida regarding a car accident and subsequently served non-party Persona with a document request and deposition subpoena. The crux of Persona's petition is that plaintiff can obtain the subpoenaed information from Doordash, a party to the Florida litigation, and the deposition subpoena/document request is unduly burdensome or cumulative. (See CCP sections 1985.8(i), 2020.220(i), 2019.030(a).) "As between parties to litigation and nonparties, the burden of discovery should be placed on the latter only if the former do not possess the material sought to be discovered." (Calcor Space Facilities, Inc. v. Superior. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 218, 225.)
Here, the matters for inquiry for deposition and the document requests facially disclose much of the information can ostensibly be obtained from party Doordash. Plaintiff requests copies of Doordash contracts, correspondence with Doordash, studies promoted or funded by Doordash, etc. (Abbarno Decl. of Facts, Ex. A.) While some of the sought information appears exclusively in the hands of Persona (e.g. Requested Material 8 [reports regarding other company implementations of real time identification checks]), the court believes that the Doordash discovery dispute should first be resolved before the court orders Persona to produce documents or appear for deposition.
Plaintiff admits that it is currently litigating its motion to compel discovery with Doordash and the court has yet to issue a formal order. (Abbarno Suppl. Decl., pars. 2-5.) Once the Florida court issues an order, the court believes that plaintiff will be able to serve a more circumscribed notice of deposition/document request on Persona which relates to information exclusively in its possession.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 301 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 301 Zoom ID 161 502 4290; Passcode 700956.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept301tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept301tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion or Discovery Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(301/JT) | |