Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV21644, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party Cushman & Wakefield of California is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party Gehry Partners, LLP, is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party OKO Group LLC is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party Robert Rubano is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party Webcor Construction, L.P. is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc.’ motion to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’ subpoena directed to third-party The Yucaipa Companies, LLC, is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff Townscape Management, Inc. (“Townscape”) (“Plaintiff”) moves to quash Defendant AG-SCH 8150 Sunset Boulevard Owner, L.P.’s (“AG-SCH”) (“Defendant”) subpoena directed to third-party Bank OZK (“OZK”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; and (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party Cushman & Wakefield of California (“C&W”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; and (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)[1]

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party Gehry Partners, LLP (“Gehry Partners”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; and (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party OKO Group LLC (“OKO Group”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties; and (3) seeks documents protected from disclosure by confidentiality agreements. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party Robert Rubano (“Rubano”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; and (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party Webcor Construction, L.P. (“Webcor”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties; and (3) contains an impossible request. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

Plaintiff moves to quash Defendant’s subpoena directed to third-party The Yucaipa Companies, LLC (“Yucaipa”) on the grounds that the subpoena is (1) impermissibly overbroad and seek documents and communications that are outside the scope of permissible discovery; (2) imposes undue and unnecessary burden upon third parties; and (3) seeks documents protected from disclosure by confidentiality agreements. (Notice Quash, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§1987 et seq.)

CRC, Rule 3.1345 provides, in part, “any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: . . . [¶] (5) To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.” (CRC, Rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

In lieu of a separate statement, the court may direct the parties to file a “concise outline” of the discovery demands and responses in dispute. (CRC, Rule 3.1345(b)(2) [stating no separate statement needed “[w]hen a court has allowed the moving party to submit—in place of a separate statement—a concise outline of the discovery request and each response in dispute”].)

Plaintiff failed to submit a separate statement with its motions to quash the subpoenas on OZK, C&W, Gehry Partners, OKO Group, Rubano, Webcor, and Yucaipa in violation of CRC, Rule 3.1345(a)(5), or request permission from the Court to instead file a “concise outline” of the discovery demands and responses in dispute in violation of CRC, Rule 3.1345(b)(2). However, the Court, in its discretion, will consider Plaintiff’s motions.

A motion to quash a subpoena for business records must be accompanied by a declaration showing a “reasonable and good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute” between the party requesting the records and the “consumer” or “employee” whose records are involved or counsel for such person. (C.C.P. §§1985.3(g), 1985.6(f)(4).)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that on March 8, 2025, he sent Defendant’s counsel an email setting forth Plaintiff’s issues with the instant subpoenas and requesting that Defendant withdraw the subpoenas and re-issue subpoenas. (Decl. of King ¶6.) Plaintiff’s counsel declares Defendant did not agree to withdraw and re-issue corrected subpoenas, which necessitates the instant motion. (Decl. of King ¶6.)

Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated a good faith attempt at informal resolution of the dispute. (C.C.P. §§1985.3(g), 1985.6(f)(4).) Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motions.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on OZK requesting OZK produce eight categories of communications, contracts, and agreements with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. A.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

“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.” (C.C.P. §1987.1(a).) “The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): [¶] (1) A party.” (C.C.P. §1987.1(b)(1).)

A party may only discover matters, not privileged, that are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action and that are either admissible evidence or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (C.C.P. §2017.010.) Broad discovery requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224-225.)

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to OZK is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATING TO the potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

3. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE’S involvement in the potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

4. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO SUNSET-LP on or after March 1, 2023.

5. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO SUNSET-LP on or after March 1, 2023.

6. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE on or after March 1, 2023.

7. All contracts between YOU and TOWNSCAPE and any amendments thereto RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of documents from March 1, 2023, through the present day. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. A at pg. 9.) Documents from April 1, 2023, to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 6 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE on or after March 1, 2023.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. A at pg. 9.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to OZK is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on OZK is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, and Request No. 6 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on C&W requesting C&W produce seven categories of communications regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. B.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to C&W is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

3. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE'S involvement in a potential acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

4. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO SUNSET-LP.

5. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.

6. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO any debt brokered by YOU that was secured by the PROPERTY.

7. All COMMUNICATIONS between Robert Rubano and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents” without a time limitation. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. B at pg. 16.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 5 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. B at pg. 16.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to C&W is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on C&W is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, and Request No. 5 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on Gehry Partners requesting Gehry Partners produce ten categories of communications, contracts, and agreements with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. C.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Gehry Partners is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATING TO the potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE’S involvement in a potential acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

6. All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO the PROPERTY, including without limitation, a potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

7. All contracts between YOU and TOWNSCAPE and any amendments thereto RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

9. All COMMUNICATIONS with TOWNSCAPE on or after March 1, 2023 RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

10. All COMMUNICATIONS with any third party on or after March 1, 2023 RELATED TO the PROPERTY, including without limitation, SUNSET-LP’s lender or any PERSON interested in acquiring the PROPERTY.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents and communications” without a time limitation or “on or after March 1, 2023,” a period outside the scope of the pleadings. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. C at pgs. 23-24.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 5 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. C at pg. 23.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Gehry Partners is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on Gehry Partners is granted in part and denied in part.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on OKO Group requesting OKO Group produce ten categories of communications with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. D.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to OKO Group is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO SUNSET-LP.

4. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATING TO the potential acquisition of the PROPERTY.

5. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE'S involvement in the potential acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

6. All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any agreement(s) between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO THE PROPERTY.

7. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO the potential acquisition of the PROPERTY.

8. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO the reason(s) why YOU did not acquire the PROPERTY.

9. ALL DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO any offer YOU made to acquire the PROPERTY.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents and communications” without a time limitation. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. D at pg. 31.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 10 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. D at pg. 31.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Third, the issue of Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 demanding documents that are protected from disclosure is not moot as Defendant argues. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order on April 24, 2024, which permits OKO to maintain the confidentiality of the protected documents. As such, production of these requests is subject to the relevant protective order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Gehry Partners is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on Gehry Partners is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, Request No. 10 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property, and Request Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are subject to the relevant protective order entered on April 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on Rubano requesting Rubano produce eleven categories of communications with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. E.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Rubano is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

3. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE'S involvement in a potential acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

4. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO SUNSET-LP.

5. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO SUNSET-LP.

6. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.

10. DOCUMENTS sufficient to show any ownership interest that YOU had at any time in SUNSET-LP.

11. To the extent that YOU no longer own any interest in TOWNSCAPE, DOCUMENTS sufficient to show the terms on which YOU exited.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents and communications” without a time limitation. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. E at pg. 31.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 6 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. E at pg. 38.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Third, Request Nos. 8 and 9 seek Rubano’s agreements with Plaintiff’s principals is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. While Plaintiff acknowledges Rubano is an employee of C&W, and the Cross-Complaint alleges Plaintiff breached its duty to Defendant, Defendant’s request for any agreement between Rubano and Plaintiff’s principals is overbroad. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. E at pg. 31.) Therefore, Request Nos. 8 and 9 must be limited to agreements “relating to the Property.”

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Rubano is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on Rubano is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, Request No. 6 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property, and Request Nos. 8 and 9 are limited to agreements relating to the Property. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on Webcor requesting Rubano produce ten categories of communications with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. H.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Webcor is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

2. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATING TO SUNSET-LP.

5. All agreements between YOU and SUNSET-LP and any amendments thereto, including but not limited to, the Preconstruction Agreement.

6. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS RELATING TO any work that TOWNSCAPE instructed YOU to perform in connection with the PROPERTY.

7. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any work that TOWNSCAPE instructed YOU to perform in connection with the PROPERTY that was not at the direction and/or express approval of SUNSET-LP.

9. All DOCUMENTS that YOU provided to TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY on or after July 1, 2022.

10. All DOCUMENTS that TOWNSCAPE requested that YOU provide to it on or after July 1, 2022.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents and communications” without a time limitation, or for “All DOCUMENTS that TOWNSCAPE requested that YOU provide to it on or after July 1, 2022.” (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. H at pg. 45.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 4 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. H at pg. 45.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Third, Request No. 7 asks Webcor to produce, “All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS, RELATING TO any work that TOWNSCAPE instructed YOU to perform in connection with the PROPERTY that was not at the direction and/or express approval of SUNSET-LP.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. H at pg. 45.) Plaintiff fails to produce any evidence demonstrating compliance with the request is impossible. It does not appear Webcor has objected to Defendant’s request, and should production prove to be overly burdensome, mechanisms exist to protect Webcor from such production.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Webcor is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on Webcor is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, and Request No. 4 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

On February 16, 2024, Defendant served a subpoena duces tecum on OKO Group requesting OKO Group produce seven categories of communications with Plaintiff regarding real property located at 8150 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90046. (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. G.)

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on March 14, 2024. Defendant filed its opposition on July 24, 2024. Plaintiff filed its reply on July 30, 2024.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Yucaipa is granted in part and denied in part.

1. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO the PROPERTY.

3. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATING TO a potential sale or acquisition of the PROPERTY.

4. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE'S involvement in a potential acquisition of the PROPERTY by any third party.

5. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO the potential acquisition of the PROPERTY.

6. All DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and TOWNSCAPE RELATED TO SUNSET-LP.

Here, Defendant seeks documents that are not relevant to the instant lawsuit. First, the Complaint and Cross-Complaint allege that as of March 31, 2023, the Property had been given back to the lender, and at that point, all of the alleged breaches at issue were complete. (Complaint ¶14J; Cross-Complaint ¶24.) The pleadings also indicate that issues between the parties began in 2019, and the Cross-Complaint alleges the original agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant was entered into on or about January 11, 2012. (Complaint ¶¶9-10; Cross-Complaint ¶¶6, 17.) Defendant’s subpoena demands production of “all documents and communications” without a time limitation. (See Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. G at pg. 52.) Documents after the breach alleged in the pleadings to the present are of no relevance to the subject matter of this litigation and are thus outside the scope of permissible discovery. Therefore, Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023.

Second, Defendant’s subpoena request in category 7 is overbroad. The request states, “All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any third party RELATED TO TOWNSCAPE.” (Decl. of King ¶2, Exh. G at pg. 52.) Aside from the abovementioned modification of the time period for communications to produce, the request must be limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Third, the issue of Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 demanding documents that are protected from disclosure is not moot as Defendant argues. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order on April 24, 2024, which permits Yucaipa to maintain the confidentiality of the protected documents. As such, production of these requests is subject to the relevant protective order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena to Yucaipa is granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena on Yucaipa is granted in part and denied in part.

Defendant’s subpoena demands are limited to documents from January 11, 2012, to April 1, 2023, Request No. 7 is limited to communications relating to Plaintiff and the Property, and Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are subject to the relevant protective order entered on April 24, 2024. Plaintiff’s motion is otherwise denied.

In light of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motions, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes Plaintiff filed one reservation ($60 filing fee) for one motion that combines seven motions to quash deposition subpoenas to third parties. Each subpoena must be filed as a separate motion; omnibus motions without separate reservations in the Court Reservation System (“CRS”) are not permitted. Therefore, Plaintiff owes this Court $360.00 in Court reservation fees it failed to pay on the instant motions.