YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash re: Subpoenas to Cosumnes River College in Department 53

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Leslie Yang’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to quash Defendant Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) subpoena to Consumnes River College (“CRC”) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 is ruled upon as follows.

Background

This case arises out of a motor vehicle collision on or around August 11, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 1.) The Complaint alleges the following: Plaintiff alleges she was involved in a rear end collision caused by Ernesto Chavez, which resulted in an injury to her neck and back as well as a traumatic brain injury. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) At the time of the incident, Chavez was covered by Defendant under an auto liability policy, which had $15,000 of automobile liability coverage. (Compl. ¶ 3.) Before a lawsuit was even filed, Plaintiff made a $15,000 policy limit demand. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

Over the course of the ensuing litigation, Plaintiff made several subsequent policy limit demands, all of which were rejected by Defendant.[1] (Compl. ¶ 5.) The case went to trial in April 2023 and the jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff in the amount of $1,745,000. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges that in the underlying litigation, Defendant unreasonably refused to settle after Defendant rejected Plaintiff’s five pretrial policy limit demands, leading to a jury trial. Plaintiff now alleges causes of action against Defendant for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract.

Plaintiff filed the operative complaint in the present litigation on May 3, 2024. Defendant filed an Answer on June 6, 2024, generally denying the allegations and asserting defenses, including application of the doctrine of unclean hands. On January 14, 2025, Defendant served Plaintiff with a subpoena for records pertaining to Plaintiff issued to CRC, demanding documents related to Plaintiff’s academic records and financial information. (Exh.M to Ackel Decl.) On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed Defendant’s counsel to request the subpoena be withdrawn due to privacy concerns. (Id., Exh.

N.) Counsel for the parties met and conferred but were unable to resolve the dispute. (Ackel Decl., ¶¶15-21.) At issue are the following four document requests: 1. All DOCUMENTS that reflect, constitute, or evidence YANG’s academic records from January 1, 2017 to the present, including but not limited to transcripts, grade reports, class schedules, exam scores, student papers, theses, course enrollment information, disciplinary

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash re: Subpoenas to Cosumnes River College in Department 53

records, graduation certificates, test scores, and any other documentation detailing YANG’s academic performance.

2. All DOCUMENTS that reflect, refer to, or relate to YANG’s admissions records from January 1, 2017 to the present, including but not limited to standardized test scores, enrollment records, course lists, and scholarship information.

3. All DOCUMENTS that reflect, refer to, or relate to the grades YANG received in any of her classes from January 1, 2017 to the present.

4. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YANG regarding her classes, enrollment, and/or academic records from January 1, 2017 to the present.

4. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YANG regarding her classes, enrollment, and/or academic records from January 1, 2017 to the present. (Exh.M to Ackel Decl.; Memorandum 6:20-6:28.) Plaintiff now moves for an order quashing Defendant’s subpoena pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 and for monetary sanctions. Plaintiff argues the subpoena violates Plaintiff’s right to privacy and is not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Defendant opposes, arguing the subpoena seeks information directly relevant to Plaintiff’s bad faith claims against Defendant and Defendant’s defenses. Defendant further argues Plaintiff waived her right to privacy and the right is not implicated because there is a protective order in this case.

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, subdivision (a) provides, in relevant part: “If a subpoena requires ... the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court ... the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b) ... 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.” Subdivision (b) provides that consumers as described in section 1985.3 may make a motion to quash.

Plaintiff argues the subpoena should be quashed because it seeks records implicating Plaintiff’s right to privacy, including her academic and financial records, which Defendant has not demonstrated are directly relevant to this litigation. Plaintiff argues the “sole question before the jury in this case was whether [Defendant] acted reasonably in protecting the interests of Chavez. It is not clear why [Defendant] believes records related to Yang’s education or subsequent automobile accidents are relevant to that question.” (Memorandum, 10:25-26.)

In opposition, Defendant argues “Yang claimed that her TBI resulted in significant cognitive impairment that impacted her grades. But if it turns out that Yang’s grades didn’t deteriorate after the August 2018 accident with Chavez, but instead after one of her other accidents, that would undermine both of those contentions.” (Opposition, 13:24-27.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash re: Subpoenas to Cosumnes River College in Department 53

The California Supreme Court has established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy in the context of discovery. The party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious. The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.

A court must then balance these competing considerations. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (internal citations omitted).) There is no dispute that Plaintiff has a legally protected privacy interest in her academic records. (See Porten v. Univ. of San Francisco (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 832.) Moreover, the subpoena also includes a request for records pertinent to Plaintiff’s scholarship. (See Fortunato v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 480-81 [financial records are protected by an individual’s right to privacy; see also Valley Bank of Nevada v.

Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 [individuals have a right to privacy in their confidential financial affairs].) In this case, based on the record before it and based on the scope of the request at issue, on balance, the Court does not find that the countervailing interests identified by Defendant outweigh the privacy interests implicated by the requests sought in the subpoena. It is unclear to the Court at what point or to whom Plaintiff purportedly claimed her academic performance suffered as a result of the TBI, as Defendant asserts in its opposition.

As such, it is unclear how it would be relevant to Plaintiff’s claims or Defendant’s defenses or even reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Further, the scope of information sought by the subpoena – including all documents relating to academic performance, documents relating to scholarship information, and all communications with Plaintiff regarding her classes, enrollment, and/or academic records – far exceeds the relatively limited grounds identified for Defendant’s interest or need for the information.

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the court’s consideration of the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion with the countervailing interests, the motion to quash is GRANTED without prejudice. Protective Order In the body of her Memorandum, Plaintiff seeks the Court issue a protective order. This request is not set forth in Plaintiff’s notice of motion, and is therefore not considered by the Court. Sanctions Plaintiff requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, which provides, in relevant part: “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008747: YANG vs LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/25/2025 Hearing on Motion to Quash re: Subpoenas to Cosumnes River College in Department 53

made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more the requirements was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.2.) Although Plaintiff has prevailed on her motion, the Court does not find Defendant acted without substantial justification in filing an opposition. Therefore the request for sanctions is denied.

Disposition

For the aforementioned reasons, the motion to quash is GRANTED without prejudice, and the request for sanctions is DENIED. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] On April 30, 2019, counsel for Plaintiff issued a demand for the $15,000 policy limits. (Declaration of

Alexander Ackel, ¶4.) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the MRA report with the demand, and indicated Plaintiff had suffered a concussion as a result of the incident. (Memorandum, 4:9-11.) Plaintiff filed suit against Chavez and litigation ensued. (Memorandum, 5:2-3.) Plaintiff was deposed on March 2, 2020. (Id., ¶8.) Plaintiff’s counsel issued another policy limits demand on May 20, 2020. (Ackel Decl., ¶9.) Plaintiff’s counsel issued a third policy limits demand on March 12, 2021. (Id., ¶11.) Plaintiff’s counsel renewed the demand on August 12, 2021. (Id., ¶13.)