Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,720 chars

16
California Constitution, article I, section 1, states: "All people are by nature free
and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending
life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and
obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." (Italics added.) Several appellate courts have
concluded that this constitutional provision does not apply to corporations. (See e.g.
Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1287-
1288; Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791.) This court has
recognized: " 'The extent of any privacy rights of a business entity is unsettled.'
(Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1492, fn.
9 . . . ; compare Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 793 . . . [state
Constitution protects the privacy rights of people, not corporations] and Zurich American
Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1504-1505 . . . [following
Roberts and declining to address federal constitutional privacy right] with H & M
Associates v. City of El Centro (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 399, 410 . . . ['businesses,
regardless of their legal form, have zones of privacy which may not be legitimately
61
On June 14, 2011, appellants took the deposition of AHMSI's PMQ and AHMSI's
counsel objected to questions on the ground of confidential proprietary information. The
deponent did not have the requested documents.
By noticed motion filed on June 29, 2011, appellants moved to compel further
responses to requests for admissions, further responses to deposition questions, and
production of documents.
On July 22, 2011, the trial court granted in part appellants' motion to compel
further discovery. It ordered AHMSI's PMQ to appear for further deposition, answer
certain deposition questions, and produce documents in response to three of appellants'
requests concerning AHMSI's policies, procedures, and practices regarding marketing
and selling, servicing, and contracting with third parties to manage real estate owned by
lenders. It ordered such discovery to take place within 20 calendar days.
AHMSI received the order, which had been served by mail, on July 25, 2011. In
an email dated Friday August 5, 2011, appellants' counsel indicated that appellants would
not stipulate to a protective order. The parties agreed that the deposition of AMHSI's
PMQ would take place on August 16, 2011.
On August 12, 2011, respondents filed an ex parte application for an order
shortening time for notice on a motion for a protective order. In support of the

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text