Defendant Equis LLC’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is GRANTED. 

Defendant to give notice.

I. MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

“If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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, subd. (a).) A party may bring a motion under this section. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).)

Defendant Equis LLC (Defendant) moves to quash a deposition subpoena for business records issued to it by Plaintiff Ruthie Zepeda (Plaintiff) on January 4, 2023, seeking all documents showing any aspect of Defendant’s financial condition. (Nelson Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. B.) Defendant argues that the subpoena is untimely, as the discovery cut-off was November 15, 2020. (Motion at pp. 5–6.) Defendant also argues that the subpoena does not comply with Civil Code § 3295, which permits financial-condition subpoenas for documents or witnesses “to be available at trial,” since it is not a trial subpoena, and does not call for documents to be delivered to trial. (Motion at pp. 6–7, citing Civ. Code § 3295, subd. (c).) Defendant also argues that the subpoena is overbroad and does not define the category of documents to be produced with reasonable particularity. (Motion at p. 7.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, but has filed a notice of withdrawal, indicating that she has withdrawn the notice to consumer and objection.

Defendant in reply argues that the notice of withdrawal relates only to the notice to consumer, not the subpoena itself, and has not been served on the deposition officer. (Reply at p. 2.) Defendant seeks an order quashing the subpoena in order to prevent future motions by Plaintiff compelling compliance. (Reply at p. 6.)

The subpoena at issue here is simply untimely in relation to the discovery cut-off. Plaintiff has provided no opposition supporting the requests made in the subpoena.

The motion to quash is GRANTED.