Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 21STCV40904, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40904    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 76

             Plaintiff brings this action based upon breach of three separate agreements.

             Defendant Kin Hui filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff alleging a threat via a text.

Defendant Singpoli Capital Corporation moves for a protective order regarding the subpoena for bank records from Evertrust Bank issued by Plaintiff. 

TENTATIVE RULING

            The hearing Defendant Singpoli Capital Corporation’s motion for a protective order regarding the subpoena for bank records from Evertrust Bank issued by Plaintiff  is CONTINUED to February 14, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant’s supplemental brief and proposed protective order, as ordered by the Court, are due January 29, 2024.

Defendant is to give notice of the court’s order and the continuance. 

ANALYSIS

Motion For Protective Order

Defendant Singpoli Capital Corporation moves for a protective order pursuant to Civ. Proc. Code, § 1987.1 regarding the subpoena for bank records from Evertrust Bank issued by Plaintiff.  

This motion is made on the grounds that the subpoena seeks the production of all records related to EverTrust Bank Account No. 002-610-772 for a period beginning October 1, 2014, to the present. This broad request is not limited to relevant matters and encompasses a wide range of financial transactions that have no bearing on the claims or defenses in this litigation. 

(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. 

(Civ. Proc. Code, § 1987.1(a).)

      § 1987.1 does not contain a meet and confer requirement. 

            The problem with Defendant’s motion is that Defendant did not attach a copy of the subpoena, nor did Defendant set forth the requests verbatim. As such, the Court cannot ascertain how to apply Defendant’s overbreadth, privacy and undue burden objections. Further, Defendant did not submit a proposed protective order, so the Court does not know what modifications it would be ordering.

            Defendant is to submit a supplemental brief setting forth the subpoena document requests verbatim, and discuss how Defendant’s overbreadth, privacy and undue burden objections apply to each category. Defendant is to also submit a proposed protective order so that the Court will know what modifications to the subpoena it would be ordering.

            The hearing is CONTINUED to February 14, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. Defendant’s supplemental brief and proposed protective order are due January 29, 2024. Defendant is to give notice of the continuance.