Jane Doe vs Justin Patton Mozart

Case Number

24CV00278

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 08/05/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Quash the Deposition Subpoena etc

Tentative Ruling

Jane Doe v. Justin Patton Mozart               

Case No. 24CV00278

Hearing Date: August 5, 2024                                     

HEARING:              Motion of Plaintiff Jane Doe to Quash the Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records Issued to the Santa Barbara Police Department by Defendant Justin Patton Mozart

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Jane Doe: Nada V. Lahoud

                                    For Defendant Justin Patton Mozart: Trevor D. Large, Natalie N. Mutz, Fauver Large Archbald & Spray LLP

                                    For Non-Park Plaza Santa Barbara: Payam Khodadadi, Alexandra L. Hider, McGuire Woods LLP

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Jane Doe’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records issued to the Santa Barbara Police Department by defendant Justin Patton Mozart is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

1. The deposition subpoena for production of business records shall be modified to request: “Any and all police reports filed by Nada V. Lahoud during the period August 13, 2022, to the present, that contain any allegations of sexual assault or of Ms. Lahoud being drugged.”

2. The order is without prejudice should further discovery reveal that discovery of other police reports is warranted.

3. Justin Patton Mozart is to provide the Santa Barbara Police Department with a copy of the order.

Background: 

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a complaint in this matter on January 18, 2024, alleging five causes of action against defendant Justin Patton Mozart (Mozart): (1) false imprisonment – El Encanto; (2) sexual battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) – El Encanto; (3) sexual battery (Civ. Code, § 1708.5) – Hilton Hotel; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) gender violence – Civil Code section 52.4.

As alleged in the complaint:

On August 12, 2022, plaintiff booked a room for a weekend getaway at the Hilton Barbara Beachfront Resort (the Hilton Hotel) located at 633 E. Cabrillo Boulevard in Santa Barbara, California. (Compl., ¶ 21.) Shortly after 10 p.m. on the evening of August 14, 2022, plaintiff drove out to State Street to get a drink or a bite to eat. (Id. at ¶ 25.) As plaintiff circled the State Street area for a place to stop, an “attractive, white, well-dressed male in his mid-30s with somewhat curly blond hair, a fit/muscular frame and about 5’10” (hereinafter, Doe 1) flagged plaintiff down and approached her vehicle stating that “ ‘some faggot had been hitting on him at a bar’ ” and that he needed a ride to his nearby hotel. (Ibid.) Though plaintiff found the statement offensive, plaintiff agreed because Doe 1 seemed harmless. (Ibid.)

Doe 1 “surprisingly” entered the back seat of plaintiff’s vehicle instead of the front passenger side, pulled out his phone, and began clicking on it. (Compl., ¶ 26.) Though plaintiff could not see what Doe 1 was doing on his phone, plaintiff surmises that he may have been alerting co-conspirators that he had succeeded in tricking plaintiff to take him back to the El Encanto Hotel (the El Encanto). (Ibid.) Leaning forward from the backseat between the gap of the two front seats, Doe 1 gave plaintiff directions to the El Encanto. (Ibid.)

On arrival at the El Encanto, Doe 1 directed plaintiff to park her vehicle in the hotel parking lot and invited plaintiff to his room. (Compl., ¶ 27.) Plaintiff agreed, and they both walked to Room 1202. (Ibid.) Doe 1 told plaintiff that his name was Benjamin Mozart, that he was in a rock band, and that he was best friends with Johnny Depp. (Ibid.) Doe 1 offered plaintiff what he claimed to be a marijuana joint which plaintiff accepted. (Ibid.) When plaintiff offered the marijuana joint back to Doe 1, he refused and did not smoke any of it. (Id. at ¶ 29.)

After taking a few hits of the joint that Doe 1 had given to her, plaintiff started to feel lethargic and drowsy. (Compl., ¶ 29.) Doe 1 then “proceeded to undress [p]laintiff, touch her breasts, penetrate her vagina with his penis and attempted to insert his penis in her mouth.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff remembers only a few minutes of the sexual encounter before losing consciousness. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff woke up the next morning naked in Doe 1’s hotel bed with Doe 1 asleep on the opposite side. (Compl., ¶ 29) Plaintiff did not remember any of the previous night after smoking the marijuana joint other than the initial few minutes of sexual activity with Doe 1. (Ibid.) Plaintiff had not consumed any substances on the evening of August 14, 2022, other than the marijuana joint that Doe 1 had given her which was enclosed in a prescription pill bottle. (Ibid.)

After purchasing a phone charger from the main hotel area and returning to Room 1202, plaintiff went to breakfast with Doe 1. (Compl., ¶ 31.) After breakfast, plaintiff drove Doe 1 to Los Angeles. (Id. at ¶ 32.) Before departing the El Encanto, Doe 1 gave plaintiff the prescription pill bottle containing the remainder of the marijuana joint that plaintiff had smoked the prior evening. (Ibid.) Plaintiff never spoke with Doe 1 again. (Ibid.)

The following night, August 15, 2022, while plaintiff was in her room at the Hilton Hotel, she smoked some of the marijuana joint Doe 1 had given her. (Compl., ¶ 33.) Soon after, plaintiff started to feel lethargic and drowsy. (Ibid.) Before losing consciousness, plaintiff recalls two male voices repeatedly stating that “she’s a threat, she’s not a threat”. (Ibid.)

The next morning, August 16, 2022, plaintiff awake and observed that her internal vaginal area was extremely sore and achy in an odd manner and without any reason. (Compl., ¶ 34.) After her sexual encounter with Doe 1, plaintiff’s vagina was not sore or achy and felt normal. (Id. at ¶ 35.) In light of the “drugged” manner in which plaintiff awoke and the excruciating soreness and achiness of her internal vaginal area, plaintiff is certain than a sexual assault occurred during the evening of August 15, 2022, with additional drugging by smoking the marijuana joint provided by Doe 1 in order to render plaintiff immobile for the purpose of facilitating a brutal sexual assault. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff reported the sexual assault to a doctor at Cedars Sinai in Playa Vista on October 5, 2022, and to a nurse practitioner at UCLA Health on December 2, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 36.) On January 27, 2023, plaintiff filed an online police report with the Santa Barbara Police Department. (Ibid.) Through the assistance of a private investigator, plaintiff eventually determined that Mozart was the registered guest for Room 1202 at the El Encanto from August 12, 2022 through August 15, 2022, and that Mozart had checked into Room 1202 at the El Encanto on the same day that plaintiff booked her room at the Hilton Hotel even though Mozart’s father owns a home a few miles away. (Id. at ¶ 37.)

After reviewing available public records, plaintiff believes that Mozart was not Doe 1 who had flagged her down in the vicinity of State Street on the evening of August 14, 2022, and who said his name was Benjamin Mozart. (Compl., ¶ 38.) Public records indicate that Mozart was about 51 years old on August 14, 2022, but Doe 1 appeared to be in his mid to late 30s. (Ibid.) Further, available photos of Mozart on the Ancestry website do not match plaintiff’s recollection of Doe 1. (Ibid.)

Doe 1 had the key to Room 1202 and full access to it with his belongings stored there. (Compl., ¶ 39.) Plaintiff believes that Mozart, acting in concert with Doe 1 and likely others, targeted plaintiff specifically and conspired to drug and sexually assault her for an unknown reason beyond sexual gratification. (Ibid.) The drugging and sexual assault that took place in plaintiff’s hotel room at the Hilton Hotel on August 15, 2022, which occurred after plaintiff smoked the marijuana joint given to her by Doe 1 and which was “likely” laced with an intoxicating substance such as fentanyl, was planned and orchestrated. (Ibid.) Plaintiff believes that what occurred on the evening of August 14, 2022, in Room 1202 at the El Encanto with Doe 1 and possibly others was a trial run or set up for what later occurred the following night in plaintiff’s room at the Hilton Hotel. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff has reason to believe that the sexual assaults that occurred at the El Encanto and the Hilton Hotel may have been planned and instigated by a male student that plaintiff knew at UCLA during the school year 1992-1993, and who was rumored to be a stalker and who has carried a vendetta against plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 40.) Plaintiff asserts that, “[a]fter a reasonable opportunity for investigation and discovery, facts will come to light to help explain the reasons and connections for the heinous events that occurred on or about August 14, 2022 and August 15, 2022 and reveal all the parties who were responsible.” (Ibid.)

On May 10, 2024, Mozart served a deposition subpoena for production of business records (the “subpoena”) on the Santa Barbara Police Department, seeking: “Any and all police reports filed by Nada V. Lahoud during the period August 2022 to the present.” (Lahoud Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that: (1) The subpoena is impermissibly overbroad and seeks documents and information that is not relevant, and Mozart has failed to show good cause for production of all the police reports requested; (2) The subpoena violates plaintiff’s right to privacy and is contrary to public policy; (3) The subpoena seeks documents and information that is protected by the work-product doctrine; and (4) The subpoena seeks documents and information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Mozart opposes the motion.

Analysis:

“The state has two substantial interests in regulating pretrial discovery. The first is to facilitate the search for truth and promote justice. The second is to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the litigants and third parties. [Citation.] “ ‘The interest in truth and justice is promoted by allowing liberal discovery of information in the possession of the opposing party. [Citation.] The interest in privacy is promoted by restricting the procurement or dissemination of information from the opposing party upon a showing of ‘ “good cause.” ’ [Citations.]” The trial court is in the best position to weigh fairly the competing needs and interests of parties affected by discovery. [Citation.]” (Stadish v. Superior Court (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1130, 1145.)

“A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature’s preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540.)

“Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with this title, any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. Discovery may be obtained of the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter, as well as of the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any document, electronically stored information, tangible thing, or land or other property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.)

“In accordance with the liberal policies underlying the discovery procedures, doubts as to relevance should be resolved in favor of permitting discovery.” (National Steel Products Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 476, 493.)

“The state Constitution expressly grants Californians a right of privacy. [Citation.] Protection of informational privacy is the provision’s central concern. [Citation.] In [Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1], we established a framework for evaluating potential invasions of privacy. 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. [Citation.] 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, supra, 3 Cal.5th 531at p. 552.)

Plaintiff’s arguments are largely conclusory regarding how disclosure of police reports would violate her privacy. She provides no authority supporting her position that police reports, in and of themselves, necessarily contain information that is protected by rights of privacy in a situation such as one that exists here. She has already made detailed allegations in her complaint that disclose numerous personal details including her use of marijuana, sexual history, physical appearance, reputation, etc.

Likewise, plaintiff’s argument that the police reports, to the extent any exist, would contain attorney work-product fails, when, according to her complaint, she is the one that filed the complaint and she has provided no showing that disclosure of her statement “would reveal [] her “ ‘impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.’ “ (Coito v. Superior Court (2012) 54 Cal.4th 480, 495-496.).

Finally, plaintiff’s argument that the records are privileged under the California Public Records Act is incorrect. The California Public Records Act is inapplicable in this situation. Mozart is not a random member of the public seeking records. He is a defendant in a lawsuit brought by plaintiff.

Mozart argues that subpoenaed police reports are probative of plaintiff’s credibility and will assist him in exposing what he believes to be a sham claim, and may also provide evidence relevant to issues of causation and other matters bearing on his defenses. (Opposition, p. 6, ll. 5-13.)

As noted above, the alleged incidents occurred August 14, 2022, through August 15, 2022, and plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she filed a police report several months later on January 23, 2023. Plaintiff has argued in previous motions, as well as her reply to Mozart’s opposition, that she continues to discover new information. It is unclear whether this new information has resulted in plaintiff filing any new police reports or filing addendums to the original.

Plaintiff’s police report of the incident, or similar reports involving plaintiff, are clearly discoverable. Relevant police reports are almost always subpoenaed, and plaintiff does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police report that she put at issue and that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. However, plaintiff does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in police reports that are completely unrelated, or dissimilar, to the incident at issue and Mozart has not shown an important countervailing interest in police reports that are not related to alleged drugging and/or sexual assault of plaintiff. For that reason, the court will order the subpoena to only seek the following at this time:

 “Any and all police reports filed by Nada V. Lahoud during the period August 13, 2022 to the present, that contain any allegations of sexual assault or of her being drugged.”

This ruling will be without prejudice should further discovery reveal that discovery of other police reports is warranted.

Sanctions requested by Mozart, against plaintiff for bringing the motion to quash, will be denied.