Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 21GDCV00949, Date: 2023-03-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21GDCV00949 Hearing Date: March 16, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X
HEARING DATE:
March 16, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: July 6, 2023
CASE: PASADENA
POST NO. 13, DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA, THE AMERICAN LEGION, a California
non-profit corporation, v. THE LEGION CORPORATION OF PASADENA, a California
non-profit corporation; MICHAEL SEATON, an individual, LYNN GARCIA, an
individual; JOHN MCGUIRE, an individual; TONY MARTINEZ, an individual; GEORGE
CURTIS, an individual; EUGENE SACCO, an individual; THE SACCO GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability corporation; THE SACCO GROUP, LLC, dba SURETY
SOLUTIONS, TOO TIRED TO COOK, LEGION CLUB OF PASADENA, and MICRO PROJECT
MANAGEMENT COMPANY; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 21GDCV00949
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
MOVING PARTY: Defendants the Legion Corporation of Pasadena,
Michael Seaton, Lynne Garcia, John McGuire, Tony Martinez, George Curtis, and
Eugene Sacco (“Moving Parties”)
RESPONDING PARTY:
Plaintiff
Pasadena Post No. 13, Department of California, The American Legion
(“Plaintiff”)
SERVICE: Filed January 30, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed March 2, 2023
REPLY: No reply filed.
RELIEF REQUESTED
Moving
Parties move for an order prohibiting the disclosure of financial documents.
BACKGROUND
This complaint arises
out of a dispute where Plaintiff Pasadena Post No. 13, Department of
California, the American Legion’s (“Plaintiff” or “Pasadena Post 13”) claims it
is the proper corporate identity for the originally incorporated Pasadena Post
13 corporation and thus the proper owner of properties in dispute.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on
August 16, 2021, against Defendants the Legion Corp, Michael Seaton (“Seaton”),
Lynne Garcia (“Garcia”), John McGuire (“McGuire”), Tony Martinez (“Martinez”),
George Curtis (“Curtis”) Eugene Sacco (“Sacco”), the Sacco Group, LLC (“Sacco
Group”), and the Sacco Group, LLC dba Surety Solutions, Too Tired to Cook,
Legion Club of Pasadena, and Micro Project Management Company (“Sacco Group”)
alleging five causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of
fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5)
conversion.
TENTATIVE RULING
Moving Parties’ motion for a protective order is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions
is granted in the amount of $1,618.00
LEGAL STANDARD
“When an inspection, copying, testing,
or sampling of documents, tangible things, places, or electronically stored
information has been demanded, the party to whom the demand has been directed,
and any other party or affected person, may promptly move for a protective
order. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under
Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.060, subd. (a).) “The court,
for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any
party or other person from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression,
or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.060, subd. (b).)
DISCUSSION
Moving
Parties move for a protective order prohibiting Plaintiff from seeking the production
of financial information. Moving Parties first argue that the information
sought is constitutionally protected by the right to privacy.
The
California Constitution provides Californians with a right to privacy. (Cal.
Const., art. 1, section 1.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.”
(Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (“Williams”),
citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1,
35.)
The
documents sought by Plaintiff relate to the Legion Corporation’s finances and
business transactions. In support of their motion, Defendants invoke the
constitutional right to “[p]ersonal finances”. (Motion at p. 15:21.) However, “corporations do not
have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution. Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution protects
the privacy rights of ‘people’ only. ‘ “[T]he constitutional provision simply
does not apply to corporations.” ’ ” (SCC Acquisition, Inc. v. Superior
Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755-56. fn. omitted.)
By focusing on the
constitutional rights to privacy not applicable to them or the discovery
requests at issue, Defendants have failed to establish that a protective order
is warranted in the present instance.
Moving Parties also
cite Civil Code section 3295 for the proposition that the discovery sought is
impermissible. However, the code section cited by Moving Parties pertains to instances
where a court grants a protective order, for good cause, requiring the
plaintiff “to produce evidence of a prima facie case of liability for damages
pursuant to Section 3294” before introducing certain types of evidence. (Civ.
Code section 3295, subd. (a).) This code section is inapplicable in the present
case and, therefore, Moving Parties have not demonstrated grounds for a
protective order prohibiting the discovery sought.
Plaintiff, in opposition, requests
sanctions against Defendant and its counsel totaling $2,418.00.
“[T]he court shall impose a monetary
sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party,
person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a
protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted
with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition
of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.060, subd. (h).)
Plaintiff provides its counsel charges
$400.00 and worked four hours on the opposition with an $18.00 filing fee.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions is granted in the amount of $1,618.00.
CONCLUSION
Moving Parties’ motion for a
protective order is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions
is granted in the amount of $1,618.00
Moving Party to give notice.
Dated: March 16, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an
email to the court indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org