TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Yuan Shi’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Served on Mucker Capital, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $3,877.50 Against Plaintiff and His Counsel Christopher Grivakes is DENIED.

Defendant Yuan Shi to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant Yuan Shi (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order quashing the deposition subpoena served on third party Mucker III GP, LLC seeking financial records on the grounds that Plaintiff David Carter (“Plaintiff”) did not properly serve the subpoena on defense counsel, and the information sought in the subpoena is privileged and sensitive.

First, as to whether the subpoena was properly served, the evidence shows that the subpoena was issued on August 26, 2024 with a production date of September 26, 2024. (Opp’n, Grivakes Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff’s attorney service provided proof of service showing that defense counsel had been served with the subpoena on September 9, 2024. (Ibid.) Defendant argues that the proof of service indicates service on August 26, 2024, and it was not actually served until October 1, 2024, and counsel stated he had withdrawn the subpoenas. Put simply, the proof of service shows service of the subpoena on August 26, 2024 by mail. (Opp’n, Grivakes Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) It is not clear why Plaintiff’s counsel states that the subpoenas were served on September 9, 2024, but given the proof of service shows service by mail on August 26, 2024, the Court finds they were properly served, even if counsel stated he had withdrawn the subpoena. Notably, defense counsel does not state he did not receive the subpoenas by mail as served on August 26, 2024.

As to the merits of the motion, if a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court “may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).) “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. (a).)

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that he and Defendant formed a venture capital business called Zuma Partners, with Plaintiff bringing experience and Defendant bringing connections to the Chinese investor community while starting his career as a venture capitalist, but in mid-2017, Defendant formed a new venture capital fund called AI List without Plaintiff’s knowledge, and in late 2017, Defendants Shi, AI List Capital GP 1, LLC, and AI List Capital 1, LP, allegedly misappropriated Plaintiff’s name, photograph, and likeness without Plaintiff’s knowledge to raise capital for AI List. Plaintiff alleges AI List used presentation decks with his name, photograph, and likeness to raise funds and invest in 14 companies, and Plaintiff brings this action with claims of misappropriation and allegations that Defendants were unjustly enriched through this conduct.

In the subpoena to Mucker Capital, Plaintiff seeks documents showing “[a]ll wire transfers made on behalf of Mucker III LP to Up Angels SPV 1, LLC and . . . [t]he most recent investor update sent on behalf of Mucker III LP to Up Angels SPV 1, LLC.” (Opp’n, Grivakes Decl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant has testified that he is the founder of Up Angels. (Opp’n, Grivakes Decl. ¶ 14, Ex. 9.) The Court finds this information to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was unjustly enriched through his conduct in misappropriating Plaintiff’s likeness, and while there is a privacy right in financial information, “where the financial information goes to the heart of the cause of action itself, a litigant should not be denied access” to the information requested in a subpoena such as the one at issue here. (GT, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748, 754.) Accordingly, Defendant Yuan Shi’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Served on Mucker Capital, in the Alternative, for a Protective Order, and Request for Monetary Sanctions in the Amount of $3,877.50 Against Plaintiff and His Counsel Christopher Grivakes is DENIED.