Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV04097, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV04097    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

This action stems from a disagreement over a purported investment opportunity.  On August 23, 2024, Plaintiff Hung D. Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendants Luubao N. Nguyen (“Defendant”) and REML, LLC dba Montana Nail Spa (“REML”) alleging seven causes of action for (1) breach of oral contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraudulent inducement; (4) conversion; (5) theft – violation of penal code, § 436, subd. (c); (6) accounting; and (7) declaratory relief. 

Defendant moves for an order quashing a subpoena Plaintiff issued on the grounds that the requests (1) lack relevance; (2) impose an undue and unreasonable burden on Defendant; and (3) are designed solely to harass and cause undue hardship to Defendant.

Plaintiff opposes the motion and seeks monetary sanctions against Defendant.  Defendant replies.  In reply, Defendant also requests monetary sanctions against Plaintiff.

ANALYSIS

Motion to Quash

If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

            As a threshold matter, California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345 requires that any motion involving the content of discovery contain a separate statement with the text of each request, the response, and a statement of factual and legal reasons for why an order compelling further responses is warranted. 

Here, Defendant did not provide a separate statement, copy of the subpoena in question, or any information about when, how, or to whom it was served, what was requested, what the production and/or deposition date was, or any information about whether or what response(s) to the requests were filed.

In opposition, Plaintiff clarifies that on October 31, 2024, it originally served third party Wells Fargo Bank with deposition subpoenas for the production of business records pertaining to Defendant.  However, due to an error on the Notice to Customer, Plaintiff withdrew those subpoenas, and re-served them on November 18, 2024, seeking Defendant’s financial records from June 2021, which is the date of the nail salon’s inception, to the present.  (Vo Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.)

In Reply, Defendant argues that he has a privacy right in the financial records in question and reiterates his arguments that the records are harassing and overbroad.

However, without the required separate statement, the Court cannot analyze the merits of Defendant’s request.

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to quash in its entirety.

Sanctions

In ruling on a motion to quash, “the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

Here, the Court does not find Defendant was substantially justified in bringing the motion to quash, which did not include the required separate statement or any documentation about the underlying subpoena in question from which the Court could analyze the request.  As such, the Court awards Plaintiff monetary sanctions in the requested amount of $1,750.00.

With respect to Defendant’s request for sanctions, the request is denied because (1) the request is procedurally defective as Defendant did not properly raise the request in the moving papers and (2) having prevailed, Plaintiff was substantially justified in opposing the motion to quash.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion to Quash and request for sanctions in their entirety. 

Further, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against Defendant Luubao N. Nguyen in the amount of $1,750.00, payable to Plaintiff, by and through counsel for Plaintiff, within thirty days of notice of this order. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  January 8, 2025                                                      ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court