Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: BC704544, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC704544    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 1, 2018, Plaintiffs Sam Segal and Bella Segal initiated this contract and fraud action against Defendants Bidding Unlimited, Inc., David Zinberg, Garry Itkin, and Daneilla Krashenny. On January 4, 2021, Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against Defendants Itkin, Zinberg, and Bidding Unlimited. A writ of execution was issued on June 14, 2022. On June 28, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to levy on the bank account of third party Garry Itkin JD, Inc. (“JD Inc.”). On July 27, 2022, the Court granted Itkin and JD Inc.’s motion for reconsideration of the ex parte application and granted their claims of exemption on the grounds that the money levied upon came from exempt federal government COVID relief loans.

            While the motion for reconsideration was pending, Plaintiffs served upon East West Bank a subpoena for “[a]ny and all documents, including, but not limited to bank statements, account ledgers, cancelled checks for any and all accounts held in the name of Garry Itkin, JD, Inc.” Itkin and JD, Inc. presently move to quash the subpoena.

LEGAL STANDARD

 “If a subpoena requires … 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).) Good cause must be shown to require a non-party to produce documents. (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.)

DISCUSSION

            While a judgment creditor is entitled to examine the financial assets of a judgment debtor, Plaintiffs do not explain why it is necessary to obtain “any and all” bank records of JD, Inc. This broad request necessarily includes irrelevant information and information protected by privacy interests, such as payments from clients of JD, Inc. (Mtn. 1:11-14; Williams v. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552; Boler v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 201 Cal.App.3d 467, 472; Davis v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017.)

            Defendant proposes that the records be produced to JD, Inc.’s counsel, then Itkin, to review and redact private or irrelevant information. Then, Itkin would produce the records along with a log regarding any redactions. (Mtn. 5:4-9.) Plaintiffs do not address this proposal or explain why it is unacceptable. This is a reasonable procedure.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant Gary Itkin and third party Garry Itkin JD, Inc’s motion to quash is GRANTED. Production of the requested records are to be produced according to the procedure outlined by Moving Parties.