Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 19STCV28303, Date: 2023-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV28303    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 14, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Enforce Subpoena

Moving Party: Plaintiff Paul Van Kleef

Responding Party: Third Party Beitchman & Kekian, PC

T/R:      PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS DENIED.

THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE DENIED.

PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND 

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Paul Van Kleef filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Clean Concept, LLC, the Estate of Max Azria, Yasmine Hanane, Robert McFarlane, and Lubov Azria, asserting twenty causes of action for issues relating to the Plaintiff and Defendants’ business dealings.  

ANALYSIS

CCP § 1987.1 provides, “[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.”

Plaintiff moves to enforce the subpoena served on third-party Beitchman & Zekian, PC on August 9, 2023. The subpoena seeks documents relating to Beitchman’s legal representation of Clean Concept and Lubov Azria.

Beitchman asserts that all responsive, non-privileged documents have been served. Beitchman represents that the documents that it has withheld are either attorney work-product, privileged communications about non-Clean Concept entities or confidential corporate documents provided by non-Clean Concept entities.

Plaintiff argues Beitchman must produce work-product because CCP § 2018.080 overrides the work-product privilege “in an action between an attorney and a client or a former client of the attorney.” This instant action, however, is not between Plaintiff and Beitchman. Beitchman is a third party. There is no waiver of work-product in this action.

The Court also finds there is no waiver for documents related to non-Clean Concept entities. Beitchman owes independent duties to these entities; if Plaintiff seeks documents from these entities, Plaintiff may request them from those entities. The Court will not require Beitchman to potentially violate its ethical duties.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Court declines to award sanctions to either party.