TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harvest Pack, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harvest Pack, Inc. and Defendant Christina Pou to give notice. 

REASONING

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harvest Pack, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves to quash or modify the deposition subpoena issued by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jonathan Jacob Pallin (“Plaintiff”) to FGMK, LLC, Defendant’s outside accountants, seeking all communications, written agreements, financial statements, and supporting documents from various periods, starting on January 1, 2018, and ending on October 1, 2023. Defendant argues that the documents were prepared under specific privileges, are unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims, and go beyond the scope of the issues in this action. Defendant also notes that it made written objections when Plaintiff sought these documents in his requests for production of documents and in connection with Defendant’s deposition, Plaintiff failed to move to compel disclosure over those objections, and the objections are now considered valid, such that Plaintiff should not be permitted to now seek the documents from a third party.

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 the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as Defendant Harvest Pack, Inc. and its CEO, Defendant Christina Pou’s broker to list, market, and sell the company; Plaintiff performed the work and marketed the company for 11 months; it was later discovered that Defendants had inflated the value of the company, so a willing buyer adjusted its offer to purchase for a reduced price; Defendants directed Plaintiff to take the sale listing off the market; and Defendants have not paid the broker fee due to Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-25.) In the cross-complaint, Defendant alleges that Pou asked Plaintiff whether he would like to continue the agreement between the parties after no appropriate buyer had been found, but Plaintiff did not respond and filed this action, while also failing to take further steps to market the company despite the exclusive period still running and the agreement remaining in effect, thus preventing the sale of the company. (Cross-Compl. ¶¶ 6-10.)

Plaintiff contends he is entitled to obtain the subject discovery because the financial documents are necessary and directly related to the purported misrepresentation of the value of the company, and Plaintiff also requires such information to defend himself against Defendant’s claim for damages against Plaintiff. Put simply, Plaintiff has made an insufficient showing to allow him to obtain the requested discovery.

“Although corporations have a lesser right to privacy than human beings and are not entitled to claim a right to privacy in terms of a fundamental right, some right to privacy exists. Privacy rights accorded artificial entities are not stagnant, but depend on the circumstances.” (Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 796.) While Plaintiff may be entitled to certain discovery to allow him to support his claims of misrepresentations of the value of the company and to conduct a valuation of the company, he has not sufficiently demonstrated that such information cannot be obtained in a less intrusive manner without obtaining a wide range of financial documents. “[W]here 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 ones at issue here (GT, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748, 754), but Plaintiff has not demonstrated there is no other means of access to the information requested. In so ruling, the Court takes care to note that Plaintiff is seeking this information from a third party, not Defendant itself, nor has Plaintiff limited the subpoena in scope to seek only basic information about the valuation of the company. Accordingly, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Harvest Pack, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Documents is GRANTED.