Judge: Deborah C. Servino, Case: 30-2021-01212352, Date: 2022-08-26 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Kaitlin Hardin’s (“Defendant”) motion for protective order against production of documents pursuant to Plaintiff Tracee Viglio-Anastasi’s subpoenas to Edward Reuscher and Rockefeller Financial, Inc., is denied. 

The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party “from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).)  Furthermore, the court may restrict discovery where it is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2019.030, subd. (a)(1).)  The protective order may include, among other things, an order that the deposition not be taken at all, or that it be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.240, subds. (b)(1) & (b)(5).)  If the motion is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery sought on such terms and conditions as are just.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.240, subd. (g).)

Generally, the party seeking a protective order will be required to show that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in discovery procedure clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)  The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought.  (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 318.)

Defendant contends that Plaintiff should be required to retain and pay for lawyers for Bread Crumb Ohana Cafe before documents are produced pursuant to her subpoenas. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is the only person remaining with an interest in Bread Crumb Ohana Cafe.  Defendant reasons that Defendant N. Hardin has been discharged in bankruptcy.  So, she further asserts, Plaintiff is the only remaining shareholder and director.  Defendant argues that it is “fundamentally unfair” for Plaintiff to seek discovery about Bread Crumb Ohana Cafe without hiring it an attorney and to seek discovery from a company in which she has the only interest.  [Motion MPA at 4.]

First, it is not clear that N. Hardin has been discharged from bankruptcy: the order granting Plaintiff relief from stay indicates that dischargeability will be determined after Plaintiff’s claims are adjudication.  Second, Plaintiff is not the only shareholder. The other 50% belongs to someone – even if it is the Chapter 7 Trustee.  Third, Defendant fails to adequately explain why it is unfair for Plaintiff to pursue documentation about Bread Crumb Ohana Cafe’s finances, which is necessary to establish her claims, whether for dissolution or damages against N. Hardin and K. Hardin.  Finally, Defendant has provided no authority for why Plaintiff must pay for an attorney for Bread Crumb Ohana Cafe in order to pursue discovery and her claims.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

The court finds that Defendant brought this motion without substantial justification.  Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is granted. Within 30 days of the notice of ruling, Defendant Kaitlin Hardin shall pay $1,750 to Law Office of Jennifer N. Harris.

Plaintiff shall give notice of the ruling.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE