Tentative Ruling: Andy Herrera vs The Save Mart Companies LLC et al

Case Number

25CV04431

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/14/2026 - 10:30

Nature of Proceedings

Motions to Quash

Tentative Ruling

The court declines to quash the subpoenas served on May 28, 2026, on the basis defendant waived its right to enforce it. Plaintiff bears some responsibility for the failure to address the merits of the December 2025 subpoenas, as he indicated he intended to move to quash them, and failed to engage in the meet-and-confer attempt by defendant. In any event, the May 2026 subpoenas are not identical to the December 2025 subpoenas, as they have been modified to address the overbreadth issue identified by plaintiff. issue. The court will not quash these subpoenas based on waiver or harassment.

The court denies the motion to quash the subpoenas on the basis of the psychotherapist-patient privilege or the constitutional right to privacy. Plaintiff’s discovery and deposition responses have distinguished it from garden variety emotional distress, such as that any reasonable person might experience due to a defendant's conduct (see Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008) and instead has placed his mental state in controversy. (See Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 839.)

The court is nevertheless authorized to modify the subpoena if it is overly broad. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing to discuss how these subpoenas can be modified to allow the most restrictive production, and whether defense counsel’s September 29, 2026 offer to modify is sufficient.

The parties are instructed to appear at the hearing for oral argument. Appearance by Zoom Videoconference is optional and does not require the filing of Judicial Council form RA-010, Notice of Remote Appearance.