Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01908, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling

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

Tentative Ruling

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

Hearing Date March 24, 2023

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena re KROST

Defendant Stuart Rubin served a deposition subpoena on accounting firm KROST, which previously employed an accountant who worked for the business entities in this action. Rubin seeks to quash.

Timeliness

The relevant statutes state notice of a motion to quash a subpoena must be given at least five days prior to the production date, but courts have the authority to consider an untimely motion to quash. Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1985.3(g); Slage v. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1312. Discovery is not limitless, and discovery requests that do not seek relevant information or which impose a burden that outweighs the likelihood of discovering relevant information are prohibited. E.g. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Supr. Ct. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 223.

Stiffelman argues the court should decline to consider the motion since it was not filed until the date of production, February 21, 2023. Per Slage, a motion to quash can be considered even if it is filed after the date of production. In the interest of justice and a substantive hearing on the merits, the court will consider the motion.

All requests at issue seek documents related to either the hotel development project or the two business entities involved with the project, Glenroy Coachella, LLC, and Glenroy Coachella holdings. The development project is the gravamen of this lawsuit, and, per the allegations in plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, the two entities were created to further the project. Therefore, documents related to any of these three topics are relevant and discoverable.  

While Rubin argues the subpoenas are overbroad because they lack any time constraints, he does not suggest a narrower time frame that would be appropriate. Based on the evidence, it appears any documents related to or created by Glenroy Coachella, LLC and Glenroy Coachella Holdings would be relevant regardless of when they were created. The entities were created solely to assist with the project at the center of this lawsuit. Therefore, any documents created at any point would be related to the project and discoverable.

Rubin also argues the request are unintelligible. The language in each request is clear and straightforward; to the extent that “REFERRING, PERTAINING OR RELATING TO” is insufficiently defined, KROST must still make a good-faith effort to comply to the best of its ability. DENIED.