Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffattorneysubpoenaappealtrialmotioncomplianceobjectioncivil procedurerelevance

plaintiffdefendantattorneysubpoenaappealtrialmotioncorporation

Related Cases

Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 10, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,341, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,281

Facts

The plaintiffs, 1,034 former students of a culinary school, alleged fraud against the school and sought loan information from Sallie Mae through a subpoena. After Sallie Mae's initial response indicated high costs for hard copies, the students issued a second subpoena requesting electronically stored information in a more accessible format. Sallie Mae refused to comply, claiming the request was burdensome and irrelevant, leading to the students opposing the motion to quash.

Plaintiffs are 1,034 former students who enrolled in a culinary school owned and/or operated by defendants California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. In their amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants defrauded them into enrolling in culinary school by numerous misrepresentations about graduation rates, employment prospects after graduation, and anticipated income levels.

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying Sallie Mae's motion to quash the subpoena for electronically stored information and awarding attorney fees to the plaintiffs?

Rule

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.8, a subpoena may require the production of electronically stored information, and the subpoenaed party must comply unless they can show that the information is not reasonably accessible due to undue burden or expense.

Section 1985.8, subdivision (a)(1) states: 'A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require that electronically stored information, as defined in Section 2016.020, be produced and that the party serving the subpoena, or someone acting on the party's request, be permitted to inspect, copy, test, or sample the information.'

Analysis

The court determined that the information sought by the plaintiffs was relevant and not already in their possession. It found that Sallie Mae's objections, including claims of undue burden and irrelevance, were without merit, especially since the plaintiffs had agreed to pay reasonable costs for compliance. The court emphasized that Sallie Mae had not demonstrated that it could not extract the requested information from its existing database.

The trial court denied Sallie Mae's motion to quash, finding that the information sought by plaintiffs was relevant and not already in their possession. The court concluded that Sallie Mae was obligated, under section 1985.8, subdivision (b), to provide the requested information in accordance with plaintiffs' specifications.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Sallie Mae's motion to quash lacked substantial justification and that the plaintiffs were entitled to their attorney fees.

The order awarding plaintiffs their attorney fees and expenses is affirmed. Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions is denied. Plaintiffs are awarded their costs on appeal.

Who won?

The plaintiffs, Daniel Vasquez et al., prevailed in the case because the court found that Sallie Mae's objections to the subpoena were without substantial justification.

The trial court did not err by concluding that Sallie Mae lacked substantial factual justification for refusing to comply with the second subpoena.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

F.T.C. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 778 F.3d 142, 414 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 2015-1 Trade Cases P 79,073, 90 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1415, 114 U.S.P.Q.2d 1017

In re Refco Inc. Securities Litigation, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 7007795

Christeson v. Roper, 574 U.S. 373, 135 S.Ct. 891, 190 L.Ed.2d 763, 83 USLW 4071, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 582, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 753, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56

Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 845

Zimmer Paper Products, Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C., 758 F.2d 86, 53 USLW 2481, 1985-1 Trade Cases P 66,531, 1 Fed.R.Serv.3d 454