Existing law accords certain rights and protections to a consumer whose personal records are subject to a subpoena that is directed to a witness with whom the consumer has transacted business or who has acted as agent or fiduciary of the consumer. Existing law also accords certain rights and protections to an employee whose employment records are subject to a subpoena that is directed to his or her employer or a labor organization that has represented the employee. Under existing law, those rights and protections include the power of the court to make an order quashing, modifying, or directing compliance with the subpoena, and to make any other order appropriate to protect the consumer or the employee from unreasonable or oppressive demands. The court may award reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion for the order, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith, without substantial
justification, or that any requirement of the subpoena was oppressive.
This bill would authorize the court to make these orders to protect a person whose personally identifying information, as defined, is sought. The court would be authorized under the above provisions to award reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion for the order, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith, without substantial justification, or that any requirement of the subpoena was oppressive. However, the court would be required to award reasonable expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred in making the motion for an order to quash or modify a subpoena for personally identifying information from a court of this state for use in an action pending in another state, territory, or district of the United States, or in a foreign nation, if the moving party prevails and that subpoena has been served on any
Internet service provider, or on the provider of any other interactive computer service, and if the underlying action arises from the moving party’s exercise of free speech rights on the Internet and the respondent has failed to make a prima facie showing of a cause of action.