Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: CA-MRE Holdings v. Sierra Creek, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Nonparty Adobe Oil Development Corp.’s motion to quash plaintiff CA-MRE Holdings LLC’s deposition subpoena is granted.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

“‘Although corporations have a lesser right to privacy than human beings and are not entitled to claim a right to privacy in terms of a fundamental right, some right to privacy exists.’”  (Ameri-Medical Corp. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1288.)

Plaintiff has not shown its legitimate interest in discovering information about the loan repayment outweighs Adobe Oil’s legitimate privacy interests over its financial information.  (See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.)  Plaintiff can get the information from defendant, who offers to stipulate to it.  (See Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 222 [court “should attempt to structure discovery in a manner which is least burdensome” to nonparties]; see also Cronin decl. ¶ 4.)

Motion to Strike

Cross-defendants CA-MRE Holdings LLC, Jackson Chang, and Greg Garmon’s motion to strike is denied.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435-436.)

Cross-defendants shall file a verified answer (see Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a)) within 20 days.

A cross-complaint may be verified on information and belief.  “[T]he affidavit of the party shall state that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on his or her information or belief, and as to those matters that he or she believes it to be true.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 446, subd. (a).)

A motion to strike is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging the accuracy of that information and belief, even if the affiant attests to each and every allegations on information and belief.

Any concern about responding to RFAs is better handled by something other than a pleading motion.

CA-MRE shall give notice of all rulings.