Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV40645, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: November 3, 2023

Case Name: Tires Direct, Inc. v. Magna Tyres USA LLC, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV17696 

Matter: Motion to Quash Subpoena

Moving Party: Cross-Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen

Responding Party: Cross-Complainant Magna Tyres USA, LLC

Notice: OK


Ruling: The Motion is granted, but only as to Sanjeet Singh Veen.


Moving party 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. 



The Second Amended Cross-Complaint in this action arises out of the failure to pay invoices for tire shipments.  

Cross-Defendant Sanjeet Singh Veen seeks to quash a business record subpoena issued by Cross-Complainant Magna Tyres USA, LLC to Nuttal & Patel, LLP, an accounting firm.

The subpoena at issue seeks the following:

1. Any and all documents reflecting accounts connected to or set up for the following individuals (whether inactive or active): a. Sanjeet Singh Veen (a/k/a Sam Singh and/or Sam Veen) b. Simrun Veen c. Ramanjit Veen d. Anake Veen e. Minoo Mehta f. Prithpal Khandahar 

2. Any and all documents reflecting accounts related to the following entities: a. Tires Direct, Inc. b. Tire Supercenter of Orlando LLC c. Tire Supercenter of Jacksonville, LLC d. Tire Supercenter of Atlanta, Inc. e. Tire Supercenter of Tampa, LLC f. Tire Super Center of Fort Myers g. Tire Supercenter of Palm Beach h. Tire Supercenter of Forest Park i. Tire Supercenter of Winter Garden j. In and Out Tire Nadeau, LLC k. In and Out Tire, LLC l. Best Performance Tire & Elite Auto, LLC m. Best Performance Tire & Complete Service, LLC n. Vask Group Holdings, LLC o. Discount Wholesale Direct p. Southeastern Specialty Tires q. Tire Warehouse, LLC r. Real Deal Tire s. Tire Super Center t. Texas Tire Warehouse u. Tire Service Center 

3. Any and all communications between YOU and the individuals and entities identified in Question No. 1 and Question No. 2. 


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.)

Cross-Complainant argues that the scope of the subpoena is proper because “the fraudulent scheme carried out by Sam Singh and his associates included numerous transactions undertaken without any intention to compensate Cross-Complainants, and/or with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Cross-Complainants as creditors. (See Second Amended Cross-Complaint and Third-Party Complaint, ¶¶ 36, 56, 116, 122-123, 132, 136). Obviously, if a defendant is wrongfully withholding funds and/or engaging in fraudulent transfers, their accounting records are highly relevant. That is why all the documentation in Nuttall & Patel’s possession regarding these parties is relevant and discoverable; it shows (or at least potentially shows) when and how the fraudulent scheme began and how it has been carried out since then.”

The Motion is granted because the subpoena has no substantive or temporal limitations and yet seeks private, financial information.  However, this ruling only affects documents pertaining to Sanjeet Singh Veen.  This ruling does not affect the documents relating to the other referenced individuals/entities, none of whom objected or moved to quash the subpoena.  Further, it is not apparent that Sanjeet Singh Veen has standing to move to quash on behalf of the other individuals/entities.

Moving party 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. 








Case Number: 22STCV40645    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Department 20