Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: "Hassani v. All Concept Hospitality Group, Inc.", Date: 2022-08-24 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Quash

Defendants/Cross-Complainants All Concepts Hospitality Group, Inc. dba Fanous Cuisine and Fanous Mediterranean Grill, and Jim N. Azm filed the instant motion as a single motion to quash. It is in fact three motions that seek to quash three different subpoenas: (1) Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; (2) Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Fiserv (aka Clover); and (3) Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Jeff Jafari c/o Grant Law.

Unfortunately, the court cannot accommodate the unscheduled motions on its law and motion calendar. Accordingly, the court will construe Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ motion as a motion to quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. or, in the alternative, to enter a protective order or modify the subpoena.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Fiserv (aka Clover); and the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to Jeff Jafari c/o Grant Law  are DENIED without prejudice to Defendants/Cross-Complainants refiling separate motions to quash.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. or, in the alternative, to enter a protective order or modify the subpoena is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Motions to quash subpoenas seeking the production of consumer records are governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985.3 and 1987.1.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3 provides, in pertinent part:

Any consumer whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. The failure to provide notice to the deposition officer shall not invalidate the motion to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum but may be raised by the deposition officer as an affirmative defense in any action for liability for improper release of records. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1985.3(g).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides, in pertinent part: “[T]he court, upon motion reasonably made by [a party, witness, consumer, or employee] … 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a)-(b).) 

Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Chase Subpoena”) requests:

All DOCUMENTS related to the bank accounts of All Concept Hospitality Group, Inc. dba Fanous Cuisine, with Chase for 2018 and 2019, identified in the check attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This specifically includes but is not limited to the bank statements provided, or available to your customer, all account ledgers for said account in 2018, and all DOCUMENTS indicating authorized signatures on said accounts.

Defendants objected to the Chase Subpoena on the grounds that the request: was overbroad, vague, oppressive, lacked specificity as to time, manner, and category of documents requested, invaded the privacy of the Defendants and the third party being subpoenaed, invaded the attorney-client and/or attorney work product privileges, was irrelevant and immaterial, would not lead to discoverable evidence, was not limited to Plaintiff, and that the records for all employees other than Plaintiff were privileged.

California law provides parties with expansive discovery rights. In the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant’s right to discovery is broad. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 551.) “[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending 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; see Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301 [“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”].) The statutory phrase “ ‘subject matter’ ” is “ ‘broader than the issues’ and is not limited to admissible evidence.” (Jessen v. Hartford Casualty Ins. Co. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 698, 711, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 877; accord, Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 172–173.) “ ‘For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it “might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement....” [Citation.] Admissibility is not the test and information unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation.] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery [citation], and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases.’ ” (Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 694, 712, fn. 8.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 and other statutes governing discovery “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of well-established causes for denial.” (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d at 355, 377.) This means that “disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Id. at 378.)

Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ Cross-Complaint asserts a cause of action for misappropriation of corporate funds. The Cross-Complaint alleges that Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant took restaurant checks and made them payable to himself and his divorce attorney. (Cross-Compl. ¶ 19 [ROA No. 179].) Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant contends that he was authorized to write the checks. Although some of the documents sought by the Chase Subpoena are relevant, the Chase Subpoena’s document request is overbroad. Defendants/Cross-Complainants have not demonstrated good cause for the production of all documents related to the bank accounts at issue. Accordingly, the Chase Subpoena shall be limited to all bank account documents relating to checks paid to the order of Seyed Mehdi Hassani and checks that bear his signature.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied. (See Mattco Valley Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437 [If the results are mixed, the court has the discretion to apportion sanctions or award no sanctions on any terms as may be just].)

Moving party to give notice.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two, and Form Interrogatory No. 12.1

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Seyed Mehdi Hassani moves to: (1) compel Defendants/Cross-Complainants All Concept Hospitality Group, Inc. dba Fanous Cuisine and Fanous Mediterranean Grill, and Jim N. Azm to provide further responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Things, Set No. Two; and (2) compel Defendants All Concept Hospitality Group, Inc. dba Fanous Cuisine and Fanous Mediterranean Grill and Jim N. Azm to provide further responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Form Interrogatory No. 12.1. For the following reasons, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s motion is DENIED as moot in part and GRANTED in part.

It is undisputed that Defendants/Cross-Complainants served verified amended responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set No. Two (Grant Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B) and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Form Interrogatories-General, Set No. 1 on August 10, 2022. (Grant Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Accordingly, the motion is DENIED as moot to the extent that it requests an order compelling Defendants/Cross-Complainants to provide further responses to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents and Things, Set No. Two, and Form Interrogatory No. 12.1.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s request for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendants/Cross-Complainants All Concept Hospitality Group, Inc. dba Fanous Cuisine and Fanous Mediterranean Grill and Jim N. Azm shall pay sanctions in the amount of $3,000.00 to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Seyed Mehdi Hassani within 30 days of service of notice of ruling. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010(d), 2031.310(h).) 

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant to give notice.