Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 19SMCV01908, Date: 2023-03-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 19SMCV01908 Hearing Date: March 24, 2023 Dept: P
Gary Stiffelman et
al. v. Stuart Rubin et al., Case No. 19SMCV01908
Hearing Date March
to Quash Deposition Subpoena re KROST
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.
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.
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