Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV10025, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10025    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: December 7, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

(2) Motions to Quash Subpoena for Financial Records

Moving Party: Defendants Lisa Yvette Adams Winston and Carl Winston

Responding Party: Plaintiff Emil Kohan

T/R:      DEFENDANT LISA WINSTON’S MOTION TO QUASH IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT CARL WINSTON’S MOTION TO QUASH IS GRANTED.

THE PARTIES’ REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS ARE 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, oppositions, 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 subpoenas for their financial records. Defendants assert these records are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims and infringe on their privacy rights.

This action seeks payment of $135,000.00 for cosmetic surgery Plaintiff performed on defaulted Defendant Jannete Pacheco Ramirez. Plaintiff alleges Ramirez failed to pay the contracted amount and instead provided multiple checks that could not be cashed for insufficient funds. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant Lisa Winston represented to Plaintiff that Plaintiff was authorized to charge Lisa Winston’s credit card to pay the amount owned pursuant to the Contract. Shortly after, Lisa Winston put a stop payment on the credit card transaction.

Plaintiff asserts Defendants’ financial records are relevant to determine whether Ramirez fraudulently transferred funds to Defendants to avoid payment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff represents that Ramirez and moving Defendants have a business relationship.

As Plaintiff alleges Defendant Lisa Winston authorized payment for Ramirez’ surgery on her credit card, her financial records may lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence. In contrast, Ramirez’ purported business relationship with Carl Winston without more, is insufficient to justify discovery into Carl Winston’s private financial records.

Defendant Lisa Winston’s motion to quash is DENIED. The Court declines to award sanctions against Lisa Winston as Plaintiff has filed one opposition to both motions. This opposition does not apportion fees between Defendants or request sanctions in the notice of motion.

Defendant Carl Winston’s motion to quash is GRANTED. The Court declines to award sanctions against Plaintiff as Carl Winston has failed to state the amount of sanctions requested in the notice of motion and the points and authorities.