Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV16082, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16082    Hearing Date: July 11, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Meraki Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Inc. (“Meraki”), Kenneth Florian, and Jason Hunt (collectively, “Moving Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs’ complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of personal guaranty; (4) breach of personal guaranty; and (5) conversion.

On June 9, 2023, Moving Defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoena for records (the “Subpoena”) that Plaintiffs served on JP Morgan Chase, N.A. (“Chase”) for Meraki’s banking records (the “Motion”).

DISCUSSION

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 2017.010 provides that, generally, any party may obtain discovery regarding any relevant matter that is not privileged.  Discovery is relevant if it is itself admissible in evidence or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  (CCP § 2017.010.)  Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.  (Id.)

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 made by any person described in CCP section 1987.1, 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.  (CCP § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

Moving Defendants argue that the Subpoena is overly broad and infringes on privacy rights.  After the Motion was filed, it appears that Plaintiffs and Moving Defendants (the “Parties”) further conferred on the issue of the scope of the Subpoena and came to an agreement for Moving Defendants to produce documents.  (See Declaration of Marius Mateescu (“Mateescu Decl.”) ¶ 4.)

Given the Parties’ resolution of the issues, the Court GRANTS the Motion consistent with the terms set forward in the reply papers: the unredacted records are to be produced to Meraki’s counsel who may redact confidential portions before giving them to Plaintiffs. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar. 

         Dated this 11th day of July 2023