Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 20STCV49339, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV49339 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: 74
20STCV49339 JASON
ROFEH vs LENNOX JEWELRY AND LOAN, INC.
TENTATIVE RULINGS:
(1) Defendant Lennox Jewelry and Loan Inc.’s Motion to Quash
Deposition Subpoena to LASD is
GRANTED. The July 18, 2022 subpoena issued to the Los Angeles Sheriffs
Department related to Defendant Lennox Jewelry and Loan Inc. is quashed in its
entirety. Pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1987.2(a), the Court imposes sanctions against Plaintiff and
his counsel in the amount of $495.00, payable to Defendant Lennox
Jewelry and Loan Inc. via its counsel of record within 60 days.
(2) Defendant Pawn N Cash, Inc.’s Motion to Quash Deposition
Subpoena to LASD is GRANTED. The July 18, 2022 subpoena issued to the Los
Angeles Sheriffs Department related to Defendant Pawn N Cash, Inc. is quashed
in its entirety. Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 1987.2(a), the Court imposes sanctions against
Plaintiff and his counsel in the amount of $495.00, payable to Defendant Pawn N
Cash, Inc. via its counsel of record within 60 days.
Background
On December
28, 2020, Plaintiff Jason Rofeh, doing business as Gallary XV filed a complaint
against Defendants Lennox Jewelry and Loan, Inc., and Pawn N Cash, Inc., doing
business as Latino Pawn.
On June 27, 2022, the Plaintiff filed
the First Amended Complaint asserting causes of action for: (1) recovery of
possession of personal property; (2) conversion; (3) violation of Penal Code
section 496(b); and (4) fraudulent concealment.
Motion
On July 29,
2022, Defendants Lennox Jewelry and Loan, Inc., and Pawn N Cash, Inc, each
filed identical motions to quash subpoenas issued to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department by Plaintiff.
Opposition
In opposition,
Plaintiff contends Defendants do not support their motion with authority, discovery
is broad, and Defendants have not demonstrated the subpoenas are overbroad or
intrusive.
Reply
In reply, Defendants
contend the subpoenas are overly broad and will not lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.
Motion to Quash
Standard
A court “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1; Lee v. Swansboro Country Property Owners
Ass'n (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 575, 582-83.)
Subpoenas at Issue
On July 18,
2022, Plaintiff issued subpoenas to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. (Rosenthal Decls. Ex. A.) Each subpoena seeks the following categories of
documents as to each Defendant:
(1) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with any reports, investigations, or case files for [Defendants] by
the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department for violations relating to the operation of
[their] pawn shop business . . . at any time from January 1, 2012, through the
present.
(2) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with citations issued by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to [Defendants]
relating to the operation of [their] pawn shop business . . . at any time from
January 1, 2012, through the present.
(3) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with warnings issued by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to [Defendants]
. . . relating to the operation of [their] pawn shop business . . . at any time
from January I, 2012, through the present.
(4) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with write-ups issued by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to [Defendants]
. . . relating to the operation of [their] pawn shop business . . . at any time
from January 1, 2012, through the present.
(5) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with inspections conducted by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department of
the premises of [Defendants] at any time from January I, 2012, through the
present.
(6) All documents reflecting and/or
associated with inspections conducted by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department of
records, including but not limited to CAPSS reports required by the California
Department of Justice, relating to the operation of [Defendants] at any time
from January I , 2012, through the present.
(Rosenthal Decls. Ex. A.)
The Subpoenas are Impermissibly
Overbroad
Defendants
argue the subpoenas are impermissibly overbroad in both scope and time frame.
The
complaint is based upon allegations of burglaries occurring in January and
April of 2020, after which certain items owned by Plaintiff were allegedly listed
on eBay by Defendants. (FAC ¶¶ 9, 11.) Plaintiff seeks recovery of or, damages
for the loss of, “a Tiffany & Co. .77 ct. round diamond platinum engagement
ring, a Victorian George W. Shiebler 14k yellow gold & sterling ancient
coin brooch, a Swiss watch by Audemars Piguet bearing serial number D34442 and
a Cartier necklace.” (FAC ¶¶ 20, 28, 34.)
These
allegations do not warrant the issuance of subpoenas effectively seeking every
document in the Los Angeles Sheriff Department’s possession regarding
Defendants’ pawn business for the last 10 years. The subpoenas are not limited
to the relevant time period or to the relevant issues in this case and are
overbroad on their face. The subpoenas have the potential to include a
multitude of irrelevant documents regarding any interaction between the Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Defendants. Plaintiffs’ overbroad subpoenas are
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
In
opposition, Plaintiff agrees to limit the time period to 2017 to present, but
fails to demonstrate why the broad documents over a five-year period are
relevant or will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. (Opp.
at 5:20-24.) “When responding to a motion for a protective order, the party seeking
such discovery must supply evidence demonstrating a reasonable relationship
between the materials sought to be produced and the issues involved in the
case.” (Calcor Space Facility,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53
Cal.App.4th 216, 218–219.) Plaintiff’s opposition contends documents from the
Sheriff’s Department would be relevant “[i]f LASD has cited or issued
warnings to Defendant with regard to Plaintiff's aforementioned stolen
merchandise,” or “if LASD has been contacted by other persons or entities, as
it was contacted by Plaintiff, with respect to CAPSS reports relating to items
of stolen merchandise pawned by Defendant which were misidentified, misreported
and generally wrong.” (Opp. at 5:9-19.) Neither subpoena is limited to the
narrow issues raised by Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff cites Defendants’
alleged “habit and custom of failing to properly comply with the standards in
its industry,” (Opp. at 5:17-19), but fails to demonstrate any basis for the
relevance of such evidence here. Plaintiff’s subpoenas are impermissibly
overbroad as drafted.
The motions are GRANTED.
Sanctions
Code of
Civil Procedure section 1987.2(a) provides “in making an order pursuant to
motion made under subdivision (c) of Section 1987 or under Section 1987.1, 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.” Sanctions pursuant to this statute are discretionary.
The Court
finds Plaintiff’s overbroad subpoenas are oppressive and the motions were
opposed in bad faith. Accordingly, sanctions are warranted.
As argued by
Defendants, Plaintiff’s sanction request is excessive. Plaintiff sought $3,105.00 for each identical motion,
consisting of “5 hours preparing this motion and . . . another 2 hours
reviewing any opposition and preparing a reply brief and appearing at the
hearing” at a rate of $435.00 and the $60.00 filing fee. (Rosenthal Decls. ¶
4.) Plaintiff’s motions consist of a four-page memorandum, a separate
statement, and a four-page reply that contain limited legal citations.
The Court finds sanctions in the amount
of $495.00 appropriate for each motion, consisting of 1 hour of attorney time
at a rate of $435.00 per hour and the $60.00 filing fee.