Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22GDCV00202, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22GDCV00202    Hearing Date: May 25, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      May 25, 2023                                      TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         SOLAR OPTIMUM, INC., a California Corporation, v. MARK HOWE, an individual; RYAN HOWE, an individual; ARTURS REIRS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. 

CASE NO.:                 22GDCV00202

MOTION COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Solar Optimum, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:       No response filed.

SERVICE:                              Filed February 8, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Plaintiff requests an order compelling Glendale Police Department to comply with three subpoena duces seeking records pertaining to Mark Howe, Ryan Howe, and Arturs Reirs.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Solar Optimum, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants Mark Howe (“Mark”) and Ryan Howe (“Ryan”) were former sales managers for Plaintiff but engaged in sabotage and misappropriated trade secrets. Plaintiff alleges that Mark and Ryan sought to obtain Plaintiff’s confidential information to directly compete with Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Mark and Ryan attempted to convince Plaintiff’s employees to work for Plaintiff’s direct competitor. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly accessed Plaintiff’s Customer Relationship Management (“CRM”) to be used by Plaintiff’s competitor. Plaintiff alleges that Mark convinced Defendant Arturs Reirs (“Reirs”) to allow a direct competitor to access Plaintiff’s computer systems.

            Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 22, 2022, alleging five causes of action for (1) violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, (2) Violation of California Penal Code Section 502, (3) Breach of Contract, (4) Breach of Duty of Loyalty, and (5) Unfair Competition.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order directing compliance with its subpoenas are DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Code of Civil Procedure section 19871.1, subdivision (a) provides: “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.”

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff provides that it served Glendale Police Department with three subpoenas for any business records relating to incidents involving Mark Howe, Ryan Howe, and Artur Reirs. (Choe Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff seeks an order directing Glendale Police Department to comply with the subpoenas.

            As a preliminary note, Plaintiff contends that on November 22, 2022, this court ordered Glendale Police Department to comply with the subpoenas at issue here. (Motion at p. 1:5-6.) That is incorrect. The November 22, 2022, minute order pertained to a motion to quash brought by Defendants. This court denied Defendants’ motion to quash. The order did not, as the Plaintiff contends, direct Glendale Police Department to comply with the subpoenas.

            Plaintiff also argues that Glendale Police Department should be ordered to comply with the subpoenas. Plaintiff provides that Glendale Police Department initially agreed to provide the documents it had in its possession. (Choe Decl. ¶ 4, Exhibit 9.) However, Plaintiff provides that  Glendale Police Department later contested whether it needed to produce the documents because it believed, pursuant to this court’s previous order, that Plaintiff was required to serve new subpoenas duces tecum and discovery was stayed.

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order directing Glendale Police Department to comply with the subpoena’s duces tecum are denied. It appears that there is a misunderstanding causing this delay. The court issues this order to clarify the status of the discovery for this case.

            In the November 22, 2022, Minute Order, this court stayed discovery as to Defendants Mark Howe and Ryan Howe. Discovery is stayed as to any discovery requests from Plaintiff to Mark Howe and Ryan Howe. However, discovery is not stayed as to third parties and discovery requests from Defendants to Plaintiff.

            Further, the court takes no position as to whether the subpoena was modified by the court order or that Plaintiff was required to serve additional subpoenas. However, at this time, if the Plaintiffs are still desirous of the business records at issue, the court orders Plaintiff to serve Glendale Police Department with new subpoenas with the updated language.

            Lastly, Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions against Glendale Police Department are baseless and denied.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s motions for an order directing compliance with its subpoenas are DENIED.

            Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Dated:   May 25, 2023                                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court