Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV26855, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26855    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff

            The Court has reviewed the moving papers.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 1005, subdivision (b).   

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute over the purchase of real property.  The currently operative first amended complaint (the “FAC”) alleges: (1) breach of contract.  On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to quash (the “Motion”) seeking to quash a subpoena for the production of business records (the “Subpoena”) served by Defendant on nonparty Chicago Title Company (“CTC”).  The Motion alternatively requests that the Court enter a protective order to limit the scope of the Subpoena. 

DISCUSSION

Under CCP section 1987.1, subdivision (a), 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).) 

Defendant issued the Subpoena on October 18, 2022 for a November 10, 2022 deposition date.  (See Declaration of Duncan McCreary (“McCreary Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit A.)  Plaintiff argues that the Subpoena should be quashed because it: (1) is not reasonably particularized; (2) seeks irrelevant information; (3) intrudes on privacy rights; and (4) seeks information that could be gained through less intrusive discovery devices.

As it is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion.  (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court¿strongly¿encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative.¿¿If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to¿SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org¿stating your intention to appear in person.¿ The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date.¿ This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing. 

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 10th day of January 2023