Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV04058, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04058    Hearing Date: September 14, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 14, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Quash Subpoena for Business Records

Moving Party: Defendants The Impact Seat LLC, Tethered LLC, The Impact Seat Foundation Corp. and Barbara Clarke

Responding Party: Plaintiff Terrence Craig

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

            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 a subpoena served on third-party Portfolia, Inc. The subpoena requests:

1. All communications between YOU and Terence Craig;

2. All documents and communications relating to Terence Craig;

3. All communications between YOU and Barbara Clarke;

4. All documents and communications relating to Barbara Clarke;

5. All documents and communications relating to Pagedip;

6. All communications between YOU and Sherisse Hawkins;

7. All documents and communications relating to Sherisse Hawkins;

8. All communications between YOU and Lisa Coca;

9. All documents and communications relating to Lisa Coca;

10. All documents and communications relating to any investments made in Beneath the Ink Inc.; and

11. All documents and communications relating to any investments made in Pagedip.

            Defendants represent that Portfolia is a company in which Defendants have invested. Barbara Clarke, President of the Defendant entities, is a board member of Portfolia. Defendants assert the subpoenas are overbroad and vague. The Court agrees.

This is an employment action. Plaintiff alleges Defendants terminated his employment because of his race and for whistleblowing. In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff asserts that the requests are relevant because Lisa Coca also claims Clarke discriminated against her based on her race while Coca was employed at Portfolia. This does not justify discovery of every document and communication relating to Clarke and Coca. Similarly, Plaintiff asserts Clark discriminated against Sherisse Hawkins, who owns Pagedip, based on her race. This again does not justify such broad discovery.

Plaintiff might be entitled to documents showing “me too” evidence, but this does not entitle Plaintiff to the overly broad requests in this subpoena. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.