Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Wang v. Wang, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Defendant, Yaomin Wang’s (“Defendant Wang”) Motions to Quash Subpoenas for Production of Business Records from CTBC Bank Corp. and East West Bank are DENIED, but the court finds that the subpoena to CTBC Bank Corp. should be MODIFIED as discussed below.  In addition, the Court finds that a protective order should issue.

Under C.C.P. § 1987.1(a), in response to a motion to quash subpoena, the court 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.

Defendant Wang argues that the materials at issue are irrelevant, overbroad and improperly seek to invade his financial privacy rights. Where privacy rights are at issue in discovery, the party asserting the 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. The party seeking the information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interest 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. The court must then balance these competing considerations. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)

Here, Defendant Wang has shown that the material at issue includes confidential financial information in which he has a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.

However, Plaintiff has responded by identifying legitimate and important countervailing interests that disclosure would serve. His Complaint alleges that Defendant Wang committed fraud by misleading him into wiring funds into account(s) controlled or designated by Defendant Wang for the purposes of an investment and that instead of making the promised investment, Defendant Wang fraudulently transferred the funds to his own account(s) or used the funds for his personal benefits including acquiring real properties in California.  The Complaint specifically alleges that Defendant Wang used Plaintiff and/or Fame Luck’s funds to acquire properties in California.  (Complaint ¶ 19.)  The records sought are thus relevant to Plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent transfer and are necessary both to tracing the funds at issue, and to liability. 

However, the Court finds the subpoena to CTBC should be limited in time frame.  Plaintiff indicates in his opposition that he is agreeable to a limitation of May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2019.  This time frame appears reasonable to the Court given that the purported investment occurred in May 2015 and this Complaint was filed on April 22, 2019.

As the foregoing reflects, Plaintiff has shown a compelling interest in the records at issue, and Defendant Wang has failed to show any feasible alternatives that would address the need for such discovery here. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motions to quash the subpoenas, but orders that the subpoena as to CTBC Bank Corp. be limited to records from May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2019.

The Court also finds that a protective order should issue to limit the use of the materials to this litigation alone. The parties are ordered to meet and confer within 7 days regarding an appropriate stipulated protective order to prevent the misuse or dissemination of any records obtained. No records need be produced until a protective order is in place. 

Both party’s requests for sanctions are DENIED. (C.C.P. § 1987.2(a).)

Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED.

Plaintiff to give notice of this ruling.