Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 22SMCV02125, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02125    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motions to quash are DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On 10/25/2022, Plaintiff Arsalan Hamidi (Plaintiff) filed suit against Brett Gagnon, George B. Gagnon, Geminon Properties, LLC, and Ashley R. Gagnon (collectively, Defendants). On 4/11/203, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging: (1) violation of Georgia Code section 14-11-313; (2) fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) breach of operating agreement; (5) breach of operating agreement; (6) breach of fiduciary duties; (7) constructive fraud; (8) unjust enrichment; (9) conversion; (10) cessation/withdrawal of memberships and management; and (11) cancellation of written instruments. 

            Now, Defendant Brett Gagnon (Defendant) moves to quash Plaintiff’s deposition subpoenas for Wells Fargo and Capital One. For ease, the Court has consolidated its analysis into a single motion.

Timeliness

            Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s opposition should be rejected as untimely and that it “is prejudiced by Plaintiff’s untimely service of Opposition because it leaves Defendant limited time to prepare a thorough Reply.” (Reply, 3: 8-9.) However, given that this argument was raised in a reply, filed six court days before the hearing, the Court declines to find sufficient prejudice to disregard the opposition.   

Discussion

            Defendant argues that the subpoenas served on Wells Faro and Capital One should be quashed because they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek protected financial information outside the scope of the lawsuit.

            California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subdivision (a), requires that “[a]ny motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.” This requirement applies to a motion “[t]o compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.” (Id.) Subdivision (c) of the same rule continues, in relevant part, “[t]he separate statement must include-for each discovery request (e.g., each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested-the following: . . . (2) The text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers; (3) A statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute . . .” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, subds. (c)(2)- (c)(3).)

            Here, Defendant’s Separate Statement addresses all 31 requests for production with a single objection, and a single section setting forth reasons for why production should be quashed. While Defendant may contend that its general objection apples to all requests, each of the 31 requests are discrete and concern different accounts and parties. For example, RFP No. 23 seeks “[a]ny and all deposit statements for Account Number 000000271255850,” RFP No. 12 requests “[a]ny and all DOCUMENTS RELATING TO banking cards issued to accounts held or controlled by ASHLEY GAGNON after January 1, 2020,” and RFP No. 24 seeks “Copies of any and all checks (front and back sides) – received and issued – for any and all accounts held by GEMINON from January 1, 2020 through present.”

            As such, thus regardless of whether it is code-compliant or not, Defendant needed to set forth arguments which specifically addressed why each of the requests are defective because different arguments apply to different requests. This action concerns allegations of mismanagement of Geminon’s funds by Gagnon for personal use. As such, the different accounts here have different degrees of relevance here. For example, a greater scope of Geminon’s account records may be relevant than Gagnon’s personal account records. Moreover, while the Court agrees that many of the requests appear to be facially overbroad, the Court disagrees that  Geminon’s accounts and Gagnon’s accounts bear no relevance here. By advancing only common arguments, the Court is unable to determine whether certain requests should be quashed entirely, narrowed in scope, or granted in full. The uncertainty created by the common argument is further evidenced by the fact that the Separate Statement does not even clarify what Account Number 000000271255850 is. As a result, the Court has no way of determining whether or not the requests concerning this Account are relevant or proper in scope.

            Notably, Defendant’s memorandums of points and authorities only further compounds this lack of clarity. The motion only advances arguments about the documents related to Brett Gagnon, but does not specifically address the requests related to Geminon or Ashley Gagnon. (See e.g. “The request for personal banking records of Gagnon is entirely irrelevant to the case at hand. Additionally, none of those records are likely to lead to relevant evidence” and “The Subpoena essentially asks for the full personal banking records of Gagnon from January 1, 2020 to present, and as such is not narrowly tailored enough to provide any type of meaningful response.”, Motion, 8:23-24; 9: 18-19.)

            Simply put, Defendant must demonstrate that the requests as to all parties/entities/accounts for the time period sought are either irrelevant, overbroad, or seek protected financial information outside the scope of the lawsuit. Alternatively, Defendant must demonstrate why a narrower scope is appropriate to some or all of the requests. Defendant may not rely on a general common argument, particularly given that that argument does not capture the different relevance of the different parties involved.

            However, the Court also notes that the requests do appear facially overbroad in scope and timeframe. The Court urges the parties to meet and confer as to an appropriately narrowed scope of the requests.

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motions to quash are denied, without prejudice.

 It is so ordered.

Dated:  May    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. 

            Due to Covid-19, the court is strongly discouraging in-person appearances.  Parties, counsel, and court reporters present are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry if admission could create a public health risk.  The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A. Court Connect.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.  Your understanding during these difficult times is appreciated.