Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV30039, Date: 2022-10-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV30039    Hearing Date: October 20, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: October 20, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Subpoenas for Financial Records

Moving Party: Cross-Complainant/Defendant 1999 Sycamore, LLC, and Defendants Robert Haro, R. Douglas Spiro, Jr., Cole Harris, CSM Sycamore, LLC, and Capital Stone Management, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Arina Builders

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.

“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 10 subpoenas for business and financial records. Defendants assert the subpoenas are overbroad and have no bearing on this simple case for mechanic’s lien. Defendants contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to Defendants’ private financial and business information.

In opposition, Plaintiff states that the requested documents are relevant to Plaintiff’s fraud claims. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants produced altered checks in discovery. Plaintiff alleges Defendants mispresented that Defendants would pay Plaintiff as Plaintiff continued work on the property and used forged documents showing payments to Plaintiff to obtain financing.

These subpoenas seek relevant, discoverable information. Any privacy interests are outweighed by the need for discovery.

Defendants’ motion to quash is DENIED.