Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00812, Date: 2023-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00812    Hearing Date: February 27, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 2/27/23

Case #22CHCV00812

 

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

 

Motion filed on 12/30/22.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Mercedes-Benz of Valencia, Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC, Second Motor Group of Valencia, LLC and Kasra Foroutan

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Lazzara, Jr.

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things served on non-party Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.

 

RULING: The motion is granted. 

 

FACTUAL SUMMARY & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

This action arises out of Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Lazzara, Jr.’s (Plaintiff) employment and termination thereof with Defendant Second Motor Group, LLC (SMG).  Plaintiff contends that Defendant Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC (Trophy) is the sole member of SMG and 100% owner of the company.

 

Plaintiff alleges that he first worked as a salesperson for Defendant Mercedes-Benz of Valencia (MB Valencia) from December 2005 to April 2012.  (Complaint ¶12).  Plaintiff alleges he returned to work as a salesperson for MB Valencia in 2016 and sometime in 2017 MB Valencia was acquired by Trophy.  (Id. ¶¶13-14).  Plaintiff alleges he continued to work for MB Valencia and was hired by Trophy on or about 9/6/17.  (Id. ¶14).  When Trophy acquired MB Valencia, Defendant Kasra Foroutan (Foroutan) was made general sales manager of the dealership and was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor.  (Id. ¶15).  Plaintiff alleges from that time until his termination in April 2021, Foroutan made numerous unwanted sexual advances toward him of which Plaintiff complained to Foroutan and others.  (Id. ¶¶16-20). 

 

Plaintiff also alleges that he complained to Foroutan and others at MB Valencia that a supervisor, Islam Gad, was selling vehicles that Plaintiff and his coworkers had special-ordered for their clients to buyers in China via a broker.  (Complaint ¶¶22-23).  Plaintiff alleges that despite complaints nothing was done to stop this practice.  (Id. ¶23).  Plaintiff further alleges that in late 2018-2019, he became aware that the finance department at MB Valencia was “packing” car loans and charging customers a higher rate of interest than what those customers thought they were agreeing to.  (Id. ¶24).  Plaintiff alleges that he complained about the “packing” of loans to Foroutan; Foroutan became worried that Plaintiff would report the dealership to Mercedes-Benz corporate and, as a result, Foroutan retaliated against Plaintiff in the form of unnecessary and improper write-ups.  (Complaint ¶¶25-26).

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants discriminated against him due to a disability and failed to accommodate same.  (Complaint ¶¶28, 36-45).

 

On 10/3/22, Plaintiff filed this action against MB Valencia, Trophy, SMG and Foroutan for: (1) harassment in violation of the California FEHA, (2) discrimination on the basis of disability, (3) discrimination on the basis of sex and/or gender, (4) harassment on the basis of disability, (5) failure to prevent, investigate and remedy discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, (6) failure to accommodate disability, (7) failure to engage in the interactive process to accommodate disability, (8) aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling, or coercing acts forbidden by FEHA, (9) retaliation for opposing practices forbidden by FEHA, (10) wrongful termination, (11) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (12) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (13) negligent hiring, retention and supervision, and (14) whistleblower retaliation.

 

On 11/22/22, Plaintiff’s counsel issued a subpoena to non-party Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC  requesting the personal appearance of the Person Most Knowledgeable on the following: (1) Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s policies and procedures as they relate to allowing dealerships to operate using the Mercedes-Benz name, (2) any agreements between Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC that relate to the operation of the Mercedes-Benz of Valencia Dealership, (3) any violations of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC policies by Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC from 2013 to the present, and (4) Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC policies and procedures as they relate to selling of Mercedes-Benz vehicles to foreign countries via a broker in effect from 2013 to the present.

 

The subpoena also sought production from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC of the following: 

 

1. Any and all documents in YOUR ("YOU" or "YOUR" as used herein shall mean Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, including its agents, employees, attorneys, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on their behalf) possession which reflect the terms Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC must abide by in order to operate the Mercedes-Benz of Valencia automobile dealership in effect at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

2. Any and all documents in YOUR possession which reflect the terms Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC must abide by in order to use Mercedes-Benz USA marketing materials in effect at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

3. Any and all documents in YOUR possession which reflect complaints YOU have received related to Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC's business practices at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

4. Any and all documents in YOUR possession which reflect the number of warranty claims made for replacement of C-Class model engines by Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC from 2013 to the present.

 

5. Any and all documents in YOUR possession that reflect violation of YOUR policies as it relates to Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC's operation of the Mercedes-Benz of Valencia dealership at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

6. Any and all documents in YOUR possession which reflect investigations by YOU into Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC's business practices as they relate to the operation of the Mercedes-Benz of Valencia dealership at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

7. Any and all documents in YOUR possession which reflect YOUR policies and procedures as they relate to the sale of Mercedes-Benz vehicles to foreign buyers via a broker in effect at any point from 2013 to the present.

 

(See Lima Decl. ¶3, Ex.B).

 

On 12/30/22, Defendants MB Valencia, Trophy, SMG and Foroutan (collectively, Defendants) filed and served the instant motion seeking an order quashing Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance and Production of Documents and Things served on non-party Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.  Plaintiff has opposed the motion and requested sanctions against Defendants and their counsel, Fisher & Phillips LLP, in the amount of $1,507.26.  Defendants have filed a reply to the opposition. 

 

ANALYSIS

 

Upon motion, the court has the authority to quash a deposition subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court declares, including protective orders.  CCP 1987.1(a).  Additionally, the court may make other orders as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.  Id.

 

Confidential information “acquired or compiled by a corporation in the course and conduct of its business is a species of property to which the corporation has the exclusive right and benefit, and which a court of equity will protect through the injunctive process or other appropriate remedy (citation omitted).”  Carpenter, et al. (1987) 484 U.S. 19; FMC Corp. (7th Cir. 1990) 915 F.2d 300, 304.  Where an objection is made based on privacy grounds, the Court must carefully weigh the competing factors in determining whether the information must be disclosed.  See Hoffman Corp. (1985) 172 CA3d 357, 362.

 

The opposition indicates that the topics and categories in the subpoena relate to Plaintiff’s allegations that after he complained of the dealership’s practice of selling new vehicles to foreign countries via broker and that the dealership was “packing” loans, Plaintiff was retaliated against by being subjected to unnecessary and improper discipline.  (See Opposition, p.4:8-13; Complaint ¶¶22-26).  As such, it appears that the subpoena relates to Plaintiff’s 14th cause of action for whistleblower retaliation.    

The topics and categories of documents sought implicate privacy concerns of third parties.  For example, the first topic of testimony concerns policies and procedures relating to all dealerships operating using the Mercedes-Benz name.  Similarly, even where the topics and/or categories reference Trophy, compliance would implicate information related to all dealerships.  Policies and procedures regarding the use of a multinational brand such as Mercedes-Benz will include information about all aspects of the business such as amount of fees/investments, revenue/profit requirements, operational requirements, advertising/marketing strategies and requirements, staffing/managerial requirements, third-party vendor requirements, third-party contracts, etc.  This information and related documents would include proprietary information, trade secrets, confidential financial information, etc.  See Whyte (2002) 101 CA4th 1443, 1455-1456; Morton (C.D. Cal. 1993) 812 F.Supp. 1062, 1073-1074.

 

Additionally, Plaintiff seeks documents from Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s attorneys and agents which further implicates privacy concerns and creates an unwarranted burden on the third-party deponent relative to the value the information would provide to Plaintiff in this case.  This is especially true since Plaintiff has not identified any specific state or federal statute or local, state or federal rule or regulation Trophy has violated or failed to comply with by “packing” loans and/or by selling vehicles to Chinese buyers through a broker (which is not specifically alleged in the 14th cause of action for whistleblower retaliation).   (See Complaint ¶¶22-26, 175-182); Labor Code 1102.5(c).  Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the alleged “packing” of loans violates unspecified California predatory lending laws.  (See Complaint ¶177).

 

Further, certain of the categories of documents sought are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  See CCP 2017.010.  For example, it is entirely unclear how documents reflecting the number of warranty claims made for replacement of C-Class model engines by Trophy from 2013 to present are relevant to this case.  (See Lima Decl., Ex.B, Category 4).  Similarly, other categories of documents and topics to be discussed are overbroad and not described with reasonable particularity.  See CCP 2020.510(a)(2).  As noted above, the subpoena seems to relate to Plaintiff’s 14th cause of action for whistleblower retaliation which is seemingly based on Plaintiff’s complaints regarding “packing” of loans and selling vehicles to buyers in China via a broker (although not specifically mentioned in the 14th cause of action).  However, the topics and categories of documents are not limited to such conduct.  Rather, Plaintiff seeks information and documents regarding much broader categories/topics (i.e., all terms Trophy must abide by to operate the dealership and/or use marketing materials, any complaints regarding Trophy’s business practices, violation of any policies by Trophy, investigations into any of Trophy’s business practices).  The topics and categories also cover a time period before Trophy acquired the dealership (2013-2017).

 

CONCLUSION

 

Based on the foregoing, the Subpoena is quashed in its entirety.