Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV29154, Date: 2022-09-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV29154    Hearing Date: September 15, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 15, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Financial Records

Moving Party: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Yi Hu, Quishi Liang, Agape Home Health Serves, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiffs James Chen and Eugenia Hsu

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS 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 22, 2020, Plaintiffs James Chen and Eugenia Hsu filed the operative first amended complaint against Defendants Yi Hu and Quishi Liang, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) accounting; (4) constructive trust; and (5) misrepresentation. Plaintiffs sold Agape Home Health Services, Inc. to Defendants in March 2020. Plaintiffs allege that the sale did not include accounts receivable for services performed prior to March 2020. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs for all receivables prior to the sale.

ANALYSIS

“If 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. 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.”  (CCP § 1987.1(a).) A motion to quash subpoena must be accompanied by a separate statement. (CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(5).)

            Defendants move to quash twelve subpoenas for business records from various insurance companies. The subpoenas seek documents pertaining to insurance payments to Agape, including explanations of benefits. Defendants assert that these subpoenas are overbroad and invade Defendants’ right to privacy. Defendants also represent they have already served documents that would be responsive to the subpoenas. In opposition, Plaintiffs assert Defendant have not served responsive documents. Plaintiffs state that Defendant have not provided EOBs.

            The insurance payments to Agape are squarely at issue in this action. The subpoenas are not overbroad. Any any privacy interest is outweighed by the need for discovery.

            The motion to quash is DENIED.