Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV01459, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01459    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff Farbod Edwin Nikravesh filed this action against Defendant Pacific Specialty Insurance Company, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint stems from an insurance denial of coverage.

            On December 3, 2024, Defendant served a business records subpoena on architectural consulting firm HRD Arch, Inc., with a production date of December 18, 2024. HRD Arch did not produce documents on December 18, 2024.

             On February 18, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel HRD Arch’s compliance with the subpoena. There has been no opposition filed.

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(a), (b).) Good cause must be shown to compel a nonparty to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)   

DISCUSSION

            “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) “‘Relevant’ evidence is evidence ‘having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.’” (D.Z. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 210, 229.)

Defendant’s theory of the case is that Defendant was entitled to rescind the insurance policy because Plaintiff committed fraud in relation to the insurance application. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff misrepresented that the property would be his primary residence, when Plaintiff in fact never moved in and instead intended to develop the property. Plaintiff contends that he did not commit fraud in relation to his insurance application because at the time of the application, he intended to reside at the property.

            Based on these facts, a central dispute in the case will be Plaintiff’s intent for the subject property at the time of his insurance application. This establishes good cause to discover information pertaining to Plaintiff’s intentions for purchasing the property. Evidence suggest that Plaintiff hired HRD Arch to demolish the existing duplex on the property and build two duplexes and a single-family home in its place. (See Vachon Decl. ¶ 8.) This tends to suggest that Plaintiff intended to develop the property as opposed to living in it. Thus, the records possessed by HRD Arch are likely to contain information pertaining to Plaintiff’s intentions for purchasing the property, lending good cause for the subpoena.  

            Neither Plaintiff nor HRD Arch has filed an opposition to this motion. Thus, they do not rebut the showing of good cause, nor do they present any other reason against enforcing the subpoena.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with subpoena is GRANTED. HRD Arch, Inc. shall produce the documents requested in the subpoena within 20 days of this order.