Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc.
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 10
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Vasquez and 1,034 former students sue California School of Culinary Arts and related entities for fraud, breach, and consumer protection claims.
- Sallie Mae, as loan servicer, was served with a business records subpoena seeking loan data; first subpoena sought paper copies with high costs.
- Plaintiffs issued a second subpoena (Sept. 28, 2012) requesting 44 data fields of electronically stored information for 786 plaintiffs, in a machine-readable format, with a cost estimate requested.
- Sallie Mae refused to provide a cost estimate and moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it sought non-existent or non-relevant information and would require burdensome programming.
- Trial court denied the motion to quash, found the data relevant and producible in electronic form, and ordered meet-and-confer on compliance; later awarded plaintiffs $11,487 in attorney fees and costs incurred opposing the motion.
- During appellate proceedings, plaintiffs sought sanctions under section 907 for a frivolous appeal by Sallie Mae and its counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fee award against Sallie Mae is proper | Vasquez: fee warranted for opposing improper quash | Sallie Mae: no substantial justification; otherwise unwarranted | Sanctions upheld; fee award affirmed. |
| Whether the subpoena seeking electronically stored information fell within section 1985.8 | Vasquez: information core to claims; must be produced in usable electronic form | Sallie Mae: production would require extensive programming and research beyond existing records | Subpoena properly within 1985.8; obligation to produce in usable electronic form |
| Whether Sallie Mae had substantial justification to oppose production | Vasquez: opposition lacked substantial justification; demanded cost estimates | Sallie Mae: objection based on burden and scope; production not guaranteed | Lacked substantial justification; order to pay fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424 (2011) (definition of substantial justification standard for discovery sanctions)
- Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (burden on burdensomeness of producing ESI and reasonableness of format)
- Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., 205 F.R.D. 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (production of electronic data in requested form; not excused by existence of paper form)
- Playboy Enterprises v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (electronic data production scope under discovery requests)
- Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (nonparties must extract data from existing databases when reasonably possible; cost should be reimbursed)
- Ulrich v. Ethyl Gasoline Corp., 2 F.R.D. 357 (W.D. Ky. 1942) (requirement to extract and compile information from existing records with cost allocated)