DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
2025CUWE044716·ventura·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED in part, DENIED in part

Kamran Rahimov vs Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America

Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoenas

Hearing date
May 20, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKamran Rahimov
DefendantTeachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America

Ruling

2025CUWE044716: KAMRAN RAHIMOV vs TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 05/20/2026 in Department 42 Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Plaintiff

Motion: Plaintiff Kamran Rahimov’s Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoenas Tentative Ruling: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Kamran Rahimov’s Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoenas directed to Google and T-Mobile.

The Motion to Quash the Subpoena directed to Zoom is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.

Discussion: Defendant served three deposition subpoenas on Zoom, Google, and T-Mobile seeking metadata in an attempt to confirm that Plaintiff has engaged in dishonest litigation tactics related to the deposition of a defense witness. Plaintiff moves to quash on the ground that the subpoenas invade his privacy rights and seek irrelevant information.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s litigation conduct is relevant and was placed at issue by Plaintiff when he attempted to obtain sanctions against Defendant for a situation that he orchestrated. Defendant maintains that the information sought (meta data in the limited time period during the attempt to log in to Zoom for the defense witness’s deposition) may be relevant to a sanctions motion.

The Court finds that the information requested from T-Mobile and Google invades Plaintiff’s privacy rights and the potential relevance of this data does not substantially outweigh Plaintiff’s privacy. However, the information from Zoom is limited in scope, time and substance, and does not implicate the same privacy interests. Defendants seek only logistics information about the meeting to which they were invited. While the relevance may be limited, Defendant has shown that there is reason to disbelieve Plaintiff’s version of events and the impact to any privacy rights is minimal.

1

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share