Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV14915, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV14915 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 32
WG HOLDINGS SPV, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TRITON LA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: 22STCV14915 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: triton la, llc’s motion to quash
deposition subpoena |
|
|
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff WG
Holdings SPV, LLC (WGH) initiated this action for breach of fiduciary duties,
breach of contract, interference, and fraud stemming from Defendants’ purported
mismanagement of Plaintiff.
The complaint alleges that Defendant
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B) sought to purchase a
25% stake in WGH. Due to financial issues with its lenders, E&B could not directly
deal with WGH. Instead, E&B allegedly formed Defendant Triton LA, LLC (Triton)
to hold E&B’s 25% interest in WGH. The complaint alleges that the
arrangement was induced by fraud and that Defendants merely sought to take over
WGH’s assets for themselves. Triton allegedly demanded a higher ownership stake
in WGH, which WGH’s board denied. Thereafter, Defendants allegedly mismanaged WGH’s
finances and operations, leading to the damages sought in this action.
Triton has cross-complained against Scott
Wood (Wood), William Nicholson (Nicholson), and CW Children Holdings, LLC (CWH).
Triton asserts causes of action for harm done to Triton and asserts claims
derivatively on behalf of WGH. Triton and CWH are allegedly the sole members of
WGH. Wood and Nicholson are two of three board members on WGH, both appointed
by CWH. Triton alleges that Wood, Nicholson, and CWH colluded to deprive Triton
of its rights and also mismanaged WGH assets. The operative Second Amended
Cross-Complaint (SACC) was filed on October 27, 2022.
Wood and CWH have filed their own
cross-complaint against Triton, E&B, and various others. Wood wanted to
invest in oil and gas properties and came into contact with Galesi Group
(Galesi), a consortium of companies with experience in operating oil and gas assets.
Wood was allegedly led to believe that Galesi was financially solvent and had
the expertise needed to operate the oil and gas properties he sought to
purchase. Wood paid the money to purchase the oil and gas assets and formed CWH
and WGH to hold his 75% interest. Wood agreed to give Galesi 25% in return for
Galesi’s promise to operate the assets and pay government bond premiums. Cross-Defendants
allegedly lied about their financial stability, capability to operate the
assets, and intent to pay the government bond premiums. Wood and CWH then replaced
Cross-Defendants and rescinded the LLC Agreement (ARLLCA) that the parties had
signed.
On February 9, 2023, Triton filed
the instant motion to quash the deposition subpoena directed at its counsel,
Mark Greenfield. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
“If a subpoena requires the attendance
of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored
information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party]
. . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a),
(b).)
DISCUSSION
Ordinarily, a party may take the
deposition of any person. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) However,
“[d]epositions of opposing counsel are presumptively improper, severely
restricted, and require ‘extremely’ good cause—a high standard.” (Carehouse
Convalescent Hospital v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1558,
1562.) “The circumstances under which opposing counsel may be deposed are
limited to those where (1) no other means exist to obtain the information than
to depose opposing counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and not
privileged; (3) the information is crucial to the preparation of the case.” (Spectra-Physics,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1487, 1496; Carehouse, supra,
143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1563.) The failure of any of these three prongs means the
attorney cannot be deposed. (Carehouse, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p.
1563.)
Here, these requirements are not
met. Plaintiff has alternative sources of information related to the
negotiation of the ARLLCA and Triton Member Option, such as other percipient
witnesses. Mr. Greenfield was not involved in the negotiation or execution of
the ARLLCA. Mr. Greenfield’s impressions and strategies are not crucial to
Plaintiff’s case, and the information is privileged. Without an opposition,
Plaintiff fails to dispute these facts or demonstrate the extenuating
circumstances required to depose opposing counsel.
CONCLUSION
Triton’s motion to quash is GRANTED.
WG HOLDINGS SPV, LLC, Plaintiff, v. TRITON LA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
|
Case No.: 22STCV14915 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: plaintiff’s motion to quash deposition
subpoena |
|
|
BACKGROUND
On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff WG
Holdings SPV, LLC (WGH) initiated this action for breach of fiduciary duties,
breach of contract, interference, and fraud stemming from Defendants’ purported
mismanagement of Plaintiff.
The complaint alleges that Defendant
E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation (E&B) sought to purchase a
25% stake in WGH. Due to financial issues with its lenders, E&B could not directly
deal with WGH. Instead, E&B allegedly formed Defendant Triton LA, LLC (Triton)
to hold E&B’s 25% interest in WGH. The complaint alleges that the
arrangement was induced by fraud and that Defendants merely sought to take over
WGH’s assets for themselves. Triton allegedly demanded a higher ownership stake
in WGH, which WGH’s board denied. Thereafter, Defendants allegedly mismanaged WGH’s
finances and operations, leading to the damages sought in this action.
Triton has cross-complained against Scott
Wood (Wood), William Nicholson (Nicholson), and CW Children Holdings, LLC (CWH).
Triton asserts causes of action for harm done to Triton and asserts claims
derivatively on behalf of WGH. Triton and CWH are allegedly the sole members of
WGH. Wood and Nicholson are two of three board members on WGH, both appointed
by CWH. Triton alleges that Wood, Nicholson, and CWH colluded to deprive Triton
of its rights and also mismanaged WGH assets. The operative Second Amended
Cross-Complaint (SACC) was filed on October 27, 2022.
Wood and CWH have filed their own
cross-complaint against Triton, E&B, and various others. Wood wanted to
invest in oil and gas properties and came into contact with Galesi Group
(Galesi), a consortium of companies with experience in operating oil and gas assets.
Wood was allegedly led to believe that Galesi was financially solvent and had
the expertise needed to operate the oil and gas properties he sought to
purchase. Wood paid the money to purchase the oil and gas assets and formed CWH
and WGH to hold his 75% interest. Wood agreed to give Galesi 25% in return for
Galesi’s promise to operate the assets and pay government bond premiums. Cross-Defendants
allegedly lied about their financial stability, capability to operate the
assets, and intent to pay the government bond premiums. Wood and CWH then replaced
Cross-Defendants and rescinded the LLC Agreement (ARLLCA) that the parties had
signed.
On February 10, 2023, Plaintiff
filed the instant motion to quash the deposition subpoena directed at its
financial restructuring expert, Alan White. E&B has not filed an opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
“If a subpoena requires the attendance
of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored
information, or other things …, the court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party]
. . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a),
(b).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that E&B is
prematurely seeking the deposition of Alan White before pertinent documents are
produced. Plaintiff argues that E&B is improperly withholding documents
pertaining to White under the guise of attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff
requests the deposition notice to be quashed or stayed pending its motion to
compel production of the subject documents. However, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel was denied on April 3, 2023. Plaintiff offers no other reason for holding
off on White’s deposition.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s motion to quash is
DENIED.