Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2018-00054834-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 18, 2023

09/21/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2018-00054834-CU-BT-CTL AMINPOUR VS CALHOUN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Quash Subpoena, 08/11/2023

The Motion (ROA # 764) of Non-Party AMINPOUR & ASSOCIATES ('A & A') for an Order to Quash the Subpoena for KARLA V. MOHNHAUPT's Personal Appearance at Deposition served by Defendants DAN FULKERSON and PAUL BATTA ('Defendants'), is DENIED IN PART and will be HEARD IN PART.

In their First Amended Complaint ('FAC' - ROA # 756), Plaintiffs ASHKAN KING AMINPOUR and LARKING, INC. ('Plaintiffs') allege claims for fraud (third cause of action), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (seventh cause of action), intentional interference with contractual relations (ninth cause of action), civil conspiracy (fourteenth cause of action) and civil extortion (fifteenth cause of action) against Defendants.

In their Answer (ROA # 393), Defendants generally deny Plaintiffs' allegations and assert twenty one affirmative defenses, one of which is styled Set Off (sixth affirmative defense). The defense appears to assert that Defendants are entitled to a set off against Plaintiffs based on amounts that Aminpour & Associates ('A & A') was 'legally and equitably obligated to pay Defendants.' Page 4 of the Answer.

As Plaintiffs have frequently pointed out, A & A is not a party to this lawsuit. The question is why, if at all, are Defendants entitled to seek a set off against amounts sought by Plaintiffs with amounts allegedly due Defendants by a non-party to this lawsuit.

Preliminarily, the Court finds that A & A, as the owner of the financial information entrusted to the deponent, has standing to bring this Motion.

The objections to quash the subpoena to prevent the deponent from attending a deposition are OVERRULED. The deponent may possess information which is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and is not privileged. That the deponent is A & A's CPA and may possess sensitive financial information is not, by itself, a reason to quash the subpoena and prevent the deponent from submitting to a deposition.

The Court will HEAR on the extent, if any, to which Defendants may examine the deponent about A & A's financial transactions based on the relevancy, if any, of Defendants' defense of set off against amounts sought by Plaintiffs.

If the Court agrees with Defendants on the scope of the deposition, it appears as if the confidentiality of the financial information may be preserved through a protective order.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007503 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  AMINPOUR VS CALHOUN [IMAGED]  37-2018-00054834-CU-BT-CTL Defendants' request for sanctions is DENIED. The Motion was not filed without substantial justification.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3007503