Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 21CHCV00339, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00339    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F-43

Date: 2-27-24

Case #21CHCV00339, Laysion, LLC vs. Guillermo Macias, et al.

Trial Date: 4-8-24

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Guillermo Macias, Colt International Clothing Inc. dba Colt LED, and Colt LED

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Laysion, LLC

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendants request that the Court quash, or in the alternative, issue a protective order prohibiting or modifying the deposition subpoenas seeking the personal appearance and production of documents and things from Paramount Pictures Corporation

RULING: Motion to quash is granted

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Laysion, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendants Guillermo Macias, Colt International Clothing Inc. dba Colt LED, and Colt LED (Defendants) on April 30, 2021. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants took lighting equipment from Plaintiff that they did not pay for, or at least for which they did not pay in full.

During discovery, Plaintiff has sought the deposition of Defendants’ client; in this instance, Paramount Pictures. The information that Plaintiff seeks from Paramount involves any and all transactions related to SpacePans equipment that Paramount had with Defendants. It is not clear for what purpose Plaintiff seeks this information, and there is no time limit on the documents request.

The following is the production request to Paramount that is at issue:

Request for Production No. 1:

            Any and all documents, invoices, purchase orders, cancelled checks, evidence of payments, correspondence and emails related to the sale and rental of SpacePans equipment involving COLT LED, COLT INTERNATIONAL CLOTHING, INC. and/or GUILLERMO MACIAS

Defendants argue that this request should be quashed because it is irrelevant, overbroad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and violates Defendants’ privacy rights. Defendants claim that there is no dispute in this action that there was a fee sharing agreement with respect to the rental or sale of the SpacePans, and there was no dispute that the SpacePans were let overtime to Paramount.

The basis of the dispute is that Plaintiff sold stage rental lighting equipment to Defendants that Defendants did not pay for. There are no allegations of any kind of fee or revenue sharing with respect to the rental or sale of SpacePans. Therefore, Defendants argue, any requests made of Defendants’ clients are irrelevant and unlikely to lead to discoverable information.

The information that Plaintiff seeks from Paramount does not fall within the threshold of permissible discovery outlined in CCP § 2017.010: “Unless otherwise limited by order of the court . . . any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…”

Relevant evidence is defined as “evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.” (Evidence Code § 210.) The information that Plaintiff seeks is not relevant to Plaintiff’s case against Defendants for failure to pay Plaintiff. It is unlikely that it will prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.

The request is also overly broad because Plaintiff seeks information on all transactions between Defendants and Paramount regarding the sale and rental of SpacePans equipment, with no time limit for the transactions. Several of the transactions may be completely irrelevant to the present dispute.

Plaintiff briefly makes an argument in opposition that the documents are relevant because of Plaintiff’s quantum meruit cause of action. However, Defendants’ records with Paramount would not be relevant for determining recovery on a quantum meruit cause of action, as Defendants’ transactions with Paramount do not have an impact on the value of services provided by Plaintiff to Defendants.

Because the information is not relevant and is overly broad, Defendants’ motion to quash deposition subpoena is granted.

Moving party to give notice.