Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: SC129711, Date: 2024-11-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: SC129711    Hearing Date: November 15, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Amag Inc. v. Large, et al.

CASE NO.:                SC129711

MOTION:                  Motion to Quash Subpoena

HEARING DATE:   11/15/2024

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1987.1 states that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, 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.”  (CCP § 1987.1(a).)  “In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.”  (Id.) 

As a general rule, all unprivileged information that is relevant to the subject matter of the action is discoverable if it would itself be admissible evidence at trial or if it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (CCP § 2017.010; Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711.) Information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. (Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

Subpoenas which seek consumer records, including personal financial information, must adhere to additional procedural requirements laid out in CCP § 1985.3.  The subpoena must first be served on the consumer at least five days before it is served on the nonparty from whom records are sought (with a five-day extension if served by mail, pursuant to CCP § 1013). (CCP, § 1985.3(b)(3).) A subpoena must be served on the custodian of records at least fifteen days before the date upon which records are to be produced, plus any statutory extensions. (Id., §§ 1985.3(d), 2020.410(c).)

CCP section¿2025.410(c) requires that a motion to quash a deposition notice must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. Additionally, a motion to quash production of documents at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement setting forth the particular documents or demands at issue and the factual and legal reasons why production should not be compelled.  (CRC rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

ANALYSIS

This is a post-judgment collections matter. The Court issued a judgment in favor of Cross-Complainant Corey Large against Cross-Defendant Pao for $752,547.15 on July 11, 2023. Pao’s appeal was remitted on October 9, 2024.

Pao moves to quash Large’s subpoena directed to third-party Meloni Hribal Trantor LLP (“Witness”). Large seeks financial, accounting, and tax records maintained by Witness on behalf of Pao. Pao asserts that he was never served with a consumer notice or the subpoena as required by CCP section 1985.3. (Pao Dec., ¶3.) A subpoena which seeks consumer records, including personal financial information, must adhere to the procedural requirements of section 1985.3. The subpoena must first be served on the consumer at least five days before it is served on the nonparty from whom records are sought (subject to extension by section 1013), on the consumer personally, or at his or her last known address, or in accordance with Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 3, or to their attorney of record. (CCP § 1985.3(b)(1)-(3).) Since the subpoena must be served on the custodian of records at least fifteen days before the date upon which records are to be produced, the subpoena must be personally served on the consumer at least twenty days before the date upon which records are to be produced. (CCP §§ 1985.3(d), 2020.410(c).) 

Pao asserts Large has refused to serve his counsel concerning the outstanding discovery, that Large “randomly” mailed documents to “various address throughout Los Angeles, including mailing certain documents to my place of business in Santa Monica.” (Pao Decl., ¶ 2.) Pao claims that his friends or coworkers made him aware of the mailings. (Id.) Pao contends that despite the proof of service stating that Large mailed notice at an address in Los Angeles (Ex A), he “did not receive the consumer notice and the subpoena.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Pao complains that he has received mailings from Large at a Santa Monica address, but the subject consumer notice was not sent to that address.

Large explains that as a part of his post-judgment discovery efforts, he had the subpoena personally served upon the Witness on April 30, 2024, at their office at 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 500, Woodland Hills, California, 91367, calling for document production by May 20, 2024. (Fowler Decl., Ex C.) Prior to doing so, Large mailed the Notice to Consumer to 1633 South Bentley Avenue, Apartment Number 305, Los Angeles, California 90025 (“Bentley Avenue Condo”) on April 25, 2024. Large believes this to be his last known home address. In February 2023, Pao wrote that this address was a current address on a loan application. (Fowler Decl., Ex. E.) Notably, Pao fails to deny that this address is, in fact, his address. Instead, he proffers a limited assertion that he did not actually receive the notice, and that he has received other notices at his work address. This does not foreclose the probability that this address is valid. Thus, the totality of the record suggests that the notice was properly and timely mailed to Pao’s address in compliance with section 1985.3.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.