Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00087, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 21CMCV00087 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: A
21CMCV00087 Michael Buck, et al v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc.,
et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that
Plaintiffs, Michael Buck and John Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”), are members and
leaders of the Peace Apostolic Church, Inc. (“the Church”). Plaintiffs allege
that after the death of the church’s pastor, Howard Swancy (“Pastor Swancy”),
Defendants, Tamara Swancy-Prince (“Prince”) and Priscilla Woods Brown
(“Brown”), (collectively “Individual Defendants”), alleged to be de facto
officers or directors of PAC, improperly spent PAC funds and engaged in other
misconduct. Plaintiffs allege claims for declaratory relief, enforcement of
inspection rights, breach of fiduciary duty, accounting, fraud, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and false advertising.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiffs served
subpoenas on two entities for production of Defendants’ employment and financial
information. Defendants objected to the production of documents on grounds of
privacy and relevance and that the time frame for production was overbroad. Defendants
contend that any claims based on misconduct between 2002 through 2011 would be
barred by the statute of limitations, therefore, bank records for that time
period are not relevant.
In reply,
Plaintiffs contend that the records sought are within the broad scope of
permissible discovery, which is not limited by the allegations of the
complaint. Plaintiffs request imposition of sanctions.
III. DISCUSSION
The court can compel a witness’s
compliance with a deposition subpoena for the production of records, modify the
subpoena, or issue any other order as may be appropriate to protect a person
from unreasonable or oppressive demands and unreasonable violations of the (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1; Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480).
A.
Aenon School of Theology, Inc. (“Aenon”),
and Brown’s employment records.
The Church
withdrew its objections to the Aenon subpoena. Defendant Brown objects to production
of her employment records, including personnel records, and payroll and benefits
package information from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021, which Brown
contends is overbroad, irrelevant, and violates her privacy. Plaintiffs also
request Aenon’s curriculum, which Brown contends is not relevant. (Learned Decl., Exh. 1 Requests Nos. 4 and 5).
The right of
privacy protects against compelled disclosure of employment personnel records,
tax records, medical records and personal financial records pertaining to
topics not placed in issue by filing the complaint. (White v. Davis (1975)
13 Cal.3d 757) [constitutional privacy]; Brown v. Superior Court (1977)
71 Cal.App.3d 141[tax and related records; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516 [personnel
records]; SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754 [personal financial information.]).
Where privacy
rights are implicated, the requesting party (Plaintiffs) must show that the
records sought are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims and are essential to
the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Davis v. Superior Court (1992)
7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1014). The burden falls on the party asserting
privacy to establish the extent and seriousness of the prospective invasion. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557). Against that showing, the Court must weigh the countervailing
interests the opposing party identifies. (Id.). The Court considers the
purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on
the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the
party resisting disclosure, and whether there are less intrusive means for
obtaining the requested information. (SCC
Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th
741, 755).
Plaintiffs
contend that the Church donates funds to Aenon, and those funds are Aenon’s
only source of revenue. Brown contends
she is not an employee but is a volunteer at Aenon. Plaintiffs would not accept
a declaration from Aenon to that effect.
Plaintiffs have
established that Brown’s employment records are directly relevant to
Plaintiffs’ allegations that Brown, an officer and director of the Church and an
instructor or professor at Aenon, breached her fiduciary duty in allegedly
misappropriating and/or converting Church funds for reasons other than the
Church’s charitable and religious purpose. Complaint, ¶ 61, ¶ 78. The records are directly relevant to
Plaintiffs’ contention that Brown has been unjustly enriched by
misappropriating funds for her personal benefit. Complaint, ¶ 79.
B.
The Aenon Curriculum
Plaintiffs
request the curriculum specifically for the course “Ministry 500: Church
Administration” including syllabi, programs, and teaching materials from the
inception of the class to the present. (Leonard decl., Ex. 1, .pdf p. 11,
Request No. 5). Brown objects to the scope and relevance of the records.
Plaintiffs have
established that the requested documents fall within the broad scope of
permissible discovery which includes any unprivileged matter that is admissible
or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010). Plaintiffs are entitled to
discover Brown’s relationship with Aenon, as Plaintiffs have determined that
she teaches the course at issue. The scope of the requested documents is not overbroad
since it is relevant to establish the length of Brown’s relationship (if any) with
Aenon and in what capacity to determine in what manner Brown has been unjustly
enriched.
C.
The Bank of America (“BOA”) Subpoena
Plaintiffs seek production of all
documents relating to the Church’s financial accounts, including checking,
savings, and debit and credit cards issued by BOA from January 1, 2002, through
December 31, 2011, when Pastor Swancy was the CEO and Director of the Church. (Learned
Decl., Ex. 3, .pdf p. 32).
Brown objects to the production of
20 years of documents as overbroad. The Church argues that Plaintiffs did not
allege any misconduct against Pastor Swancy, therefore, the documents are
irrelevant. The complaint alleges claims based on conduct occurring after
January 2021. Any claims that occurred before that date that allegedly caused
damage are barred by the statute of limitations.
Contrary to the Church’s and Brown’s
argument, Plaintiffs’ failure to include Pastor Swancy as a party in this
action is irrelevant, since Plaintiffs have alleged claims against the Church
and its agents who represented in their solicitations that Plaintiffs’
donations were for the Church’s purposes. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-16, 18-21). Plaintiffs
have shown that the Church’s financial records for dates preceding January 2021
are relevant to the alleged misconduct since Plaintiffs assert that their
Church donations were deposited into these accounts since the early 1990s, and
it is from these accounts that Defendants allegedly made self-dealing
transactions.
Whether or not Plaintiffs are
entitled to damages preceding 2021 is not relevant to the issue of the
permissible scope of discovery. Whether Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the
statute of limitations is a matter for demurrer or summary adjudication. Finally,
Defendants’ contentions that relevance cannot be determined absent allegations
against Pastor Swancy or allegations avoiding the bar of the statute of
limitations are without merit. Defendants’ “prematurity” argument has been
rejected. (Mattco Forge v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223
Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436, fn. 3. [“Pleading
deficiencies generally do not affect either party's right to conduct discovery
(Budget Finance Plan v. Superior Court (1973) 34
Cal.App.3d 794, 797, 798) and this right (and corresponding obligation to
respond) is particularly important to a plaintiff in need of discovery to amend
its complaint.”]).
D.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an
award of sanctions.
The Court has
discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees if the Court finds the motion
was opposed without substantial justification. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2 subd. (a)). The Court has considered the declaration of Matthew Learned who
requests $11,511.15, including work purportedly performed by Michelle McGregor,
a paralegal, and Carson Baucher, another attorney. Counsel does not articulate
how each person contributed to the preparation of the motion, nor is there an
evidentiary basis for including fees incurred by Ms. McGregor and Mr. Baucher.
The Court finds
that Mr. Leonard’s hourly rate of $350 is reasonable. The Court has considered
the nature of the motion and the skill required and finds that five hours to
prepare the motion and 1 hour to prepare the reply brief and prepare for the
hearing is reasonable. (Hadley v. Krepel (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 677, 682 [discussing
factors considered by the Court in exercising its discretion to award
attorney’s fees]). While Mr. Learned includes a fee
award for time spent to meet and confer, this is expressly required by statute
to encourage the parties to resolve their issues without Court intervention. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.480).
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Compelling Compliance with Deposition
Subpoena is GRANTED. The witnesses, Aenon and Bank of America, are ordered to comply
with the respective subpoenas issued by Plaintiffs without limitation within 10
days. The Court imposes sanctions of $2,161.15 ($2,100 in attorney’s fees and $61.15
in filing fees) against Defendants, Brown and the Church, jointly and severally,
payable to Plaintiffs within 10 days.