Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV19005, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: May 2, 2025

Case Name: Loomis Armored US, LLC v. Castillo

Case No.: 23STCV00413 

Matter: Motion to Quash Subpoena

Moving Party: Loomis Armored US, LLC

Responding Party: Rafael Castillo

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion is granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect.  If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above.

On June 20, 2024, Plaintiff Loomis Armored US, LLC (“Loomis”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Rafael Castillo for (1) violation of Pen. Code § 496, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, and (3) conversion.  Plaintiff alleges that it has a cash delivery service and that its employee, Castillo, stole $36,000. 

On June 13, 2024, the Court consolidated this matter with Rafael Castillo v. Loomis Armored US, LLC, et al., Case No. 23STCV04436. Therein, Castillo brings claims for discrimination, harassment, failure to prevent misconduct, wrongful discharge, and defamation against Loomis and also five of its employees, Jessie Hernandez, Nolan Tate, Ryan Shake, Urias Jimenez, and John Toliano.   Castillo alleges that he had been an excellent employee for years, but when Shake was hired, he orchestrated a scheme in which he hired two younger employees, had Castillo completely train them, and then fired Castillo through a false assertion that he stole $36,000.  Castillo alleges that the LAPD and District Attorney found no probable cause for an arrest and that he has not been charged for any crime.  

Loomis now seeks to quash a deposition subpoena issued to the custodian of records for Cardtronics USA, Inc., which is one of its clients.

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 Motion is granted as to request nos. 1, 2, and 9, which are overbroad.

The Motion is denied as to request nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which fairly seek investigative documents pertaining to the missing $36,000.  

The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.