Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 20STCV29052, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: March 6, 2024

Case Name: Whitestone Builders, Inc. v. Taylor, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV07353

Matter: Motion to Quash Subpoenas

Moving Party: Valerie Taylor and Derek Taylor

Responding Party: Whitestone Builders, Inc. 

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is a dispute relating to renovations to a duplex.  On February 20, 2020, Whitestone Builders, Inc. (“Whitestone”) filed a Complaint against Valerie Taylor and Derek Taylor for (1) breach of contract, (2) account stated, (3) common count, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) foreclosure on mechanic’s lien.

On July 6, 2022, Valerie Taylor and Derek Taylor filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) against Cross-Defendants Whitestone, Pier Pjerin Prenga, and Suretec Indemnity Company for (1) disgorgement; (2) rescission and restitution—violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7159; (3) rescission and restitution—contract void for illegality; (4) declaratory relief; (5) breach of written contract; (6) negligence; (7) fraud; and (8) contractor’s license bond.

On August 18, 2023, Whitestone filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

The Taylors now seek to quash subpoenas issued by Whitestone to Wells Fargo and PNC Bank.  

Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1 authorizes courts to quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon the court’s own terms and conditions, including protective orders. In addition, the court may take other appropriate means to protect parties or nonparties “from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).)  Discovery devices are meant to facilitate litigation, not wage it.  (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 221.)

The subpoenas at issue seek: all bank statements from February 2022 until the present; records of checks deposited by the Taylors; records of checks written by the Taylors; and information as to the existence of other accounts.

The Taylors argue that: “Whitestone cannot explain why the Taylors would pay contractors in 2022 and 2023 when they moved into the duplex in 2021. Second, if the Taylors fail to identify and produce such payments, they will certainly be barred from seeking reimbursement for them. Third, why would Whitestone need records of checks written to the Taylors? Fourth, the identity of a consultant is attorney work-product unless and until the consultant is designated as an expert witness.”

First, records from 2022 until the present are relevant to establishing that the Taylors might have paid some contractors to correct the work of initial contractors, which might show whether the Taylors are seeking to hold Whitestone accountable for damages caused by others.

Second, the Taylors fail to provide any briefing on the work product privilege, and, in any case, there would seem to be a waiver of any privilege to the extent the Taylors seek reimbursement of consultant fees.  (See, e.g., SACC ¶ 61.)

On the other hand, there is no justification to seek checks deposited into the subject accounts.  Therefore, the Court will preclude this category from production.

The Motion to Quash is granted in part as set forth herein.  The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving parties to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.