Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01908, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19SMCV01908    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Stiffelman et al. v. Rubin et al., Case No. 19SMCV01908

Hearing Date February 24, 2023

Non-Party J. Nathan Rubin’s Motion to Quash

Attorney plaintiff Stiffelman alleges his former business partner Stuart Rubin committed fraud and negligence in connection with a hotel development project, misappropriating and/or wasting funds. Stiffelman served a subpoena on non-party J. Nathan Rubin (“Dr. Rubin”), defendant Stuart Rubin’s brother, seeking records and communications related to the project, and other development projects involving Stuart Rubin.

Dr. Rubin, Stiffelman’s former client, argues the subpoena violates attorney-client privilege and improperly seeks to weaponize confidential client information. Dr. Rubin also argues the subpoena’s requests are overly broad, uncertain and oppressive.

An attorney is forbidden to use against a client knowledge or information acquired by virtue of the previous relationship. Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 811.

Stiffelman represented Dr. Rubin, his brother defendant Stuart and L&R Group of Companies against L&R’s former partner. Dr. Rubin argues all information sought in the subpoena is confidential client information arising out of that representation and is improper under Oasis.

Oasis holds an attorney may not use confidential information against a client. There is no indication Stiffleman intends to use any information obtained via this subpoena against non-party Dr. Rubin. To the extent there is a confidentiality issue, the privilege belongs to defendant Stuart Rubin; it is Stuart Rubin who must assert confidentiality.

The parties dispute whether an attorney-client relationship existed between Stiffelman and Dr. Rubin. Assuming it did, none of the requests explicitly seeks attorney-client communications, so are not facially objectionable on privilege grounds; to the extent specific documents may be privileged, Dr. Rubin can raise those objections when he responds to the subpoena.

However, Dr. Rubin is correct that virtually all the requests are overbroad and/or irrelevant. None of the requests seeking information related to the hotel project is limited as to time, scope or relevance. Requests 4-6 seek information related to Stuart Rubin’s conduct outside the development at issue in this case; these are overbroad and irrelevant. It is unclear how Rubin’s conduct on other projects could be discoverable in this case. GRANTED.