Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 21CHCV00374, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21CHCV00374 Hearing Date: January 6, 2023 Dept: F51
Dept. F-51
Date: 1/6/23
Case #21CHCV00374
MOTION
TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
Motion filed: 11/14/22
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Carlos Ruben Valverde
(“Moving Defendant”)
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Liliana Mata and Omar Rodriguez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
NOTICE: OK
RELIEF REQUESTED: An
order quashing, or alternatively, limiting or modifying, and/or for protective
order limiting disclosure of documents sought in Plaintiffs’ 10/20/22
Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, directed to CT
Corporation System, and for monetary sanctions and expenses in the amount of $3,525.00
against Plaintiffs and their attorney.
TENTATIVE RULING: Moving
Defendant’s motion to quash is denied. Moving Defendant’s motion for protective
order and request for sanctions are denied.
The parties are
reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory
Electronic Filing for Civil. When e-filing documents, parties must comply with
the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page
5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory
Electronic Filing for Civil (particularly bookmarking declarations and
exhibits). (CRC 3.1110(f)(4).) Failure to comply with these requirements in the
future may result in papers being rejected, matters being placed off calendar,
matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with
these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of
sanctions.
BACKGROUND
This is a partition action in which
Plaintiffs seek the partition by sale of real property they co-own with
defendants Carlos Valverde and Maribel Mata Valverde (collectively,
“Defendants”), located at 10502 Shoshone Ave., Granada Hills, CA 91344. The
parties purchased the property as tenants in common on 10/26/17, and shared
possession, costs, and living expenses until May 2018, when Plaintiffs moved
out. (Compl. ¶¶ 7–16.)
On 5/11/21, Plaintiffs filed their
complaint against Defendants for (1) Partition by Sale; (2) Unjust Enrichment;
and (3) Accounting. On 6/28/21, Defendants filed a general denial which
also set forth 26 affirmative defenses.
On 8/24/21, Plaintiffs served their first
set of discovery requests on Defendants. (Decl. of Celida B. Miramontes, ¶ 6.)
On 9/13/22, Plaintiffs served a second set of interrogatories and document
production requests on Defendants, seeking the production of bank records
showing Plaintiffs’ deposits and transfers into Defendants’ accounts. (Ibid.)
Moving Defendant objected to the document requests on the bases that they were
vague and ambiguous, and sought information protected by attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product doctrine, and privacy rights. (Ex. 6 to Pl.’s
Opp.)
It is worth noting that while Plaintiffs
attached copies of the relevant discovery requests/responses mentioned above,
the attached copies are missing pages and are therefore incomplete. As such, the
Court is unable to ascertain/verify the dates the requests were propounded and
the dates of Defendants’ responses. P’s attorney’s declaration is utilized for
these dates instead.
On 10/20/22, Plaintiffs served the instant
deposition subpoena for production of business records on C T Corporation
System, the registered agent for service for Bank of America. (Ex. “A” to
Def.’s Mot.) On 11/14/22, Moving Defendant filed the instant
motion to quash the deposition subpoena and separate statement. On 12/22/22,
Plaintiffs filed their opposition. No reply has been filed to date.
ANALYSIS
1.
Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena
A party may move to quash a
deposition subpoena to strike, modify, or impose conditions on a subpoena that
is procedurally or substantively defective. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.) Here,
Moving Defendant moves to quash Plaintiffs’ 10/20/22 deposition subpoena to
nonparty C T Corporation System for the production of Moving Defendant’s Bank
of America checking account statements, on the bases that the request is
overbroad and seeks private financial information.
Plaintiff’s deposition subpoena
contains the following request for production of business records: “The records
requested are checking account statements for Carlos Ruben Valverde, whether
held individually or jointly with any other person/entity, for the period
commencing October 2017 and ending October 2018, inclusive.” (Ex. “A” to Def.’s
Mot., Attach. 1.)
Overbreadth
A Court may quash a deposition subpoena for being overly broad to the
extent that it amounts to “nothing more than a fishing expedition” and
therefore seeks the production of irrelevant evidence. (People v. Serrata
(1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 9, 15.) Discovery is relevant if it is admissible as
evidence, or “appears reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) “Discovery may relate to the claim or
defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Ibid.)
Here, Moving Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ request is overbroad
because it “seeks disclosure of information that has no arguable relationship
to any issue in this case, including information regarding third parties whose
rights are not being protected at all.” (Def.’s Mot., 12:25–27.) Plaintiffs
argue in response that they are entitled to the requested bank statements
because such evidence is “necessary for Plaintiffs to establish their claim to
the equity of the Subject Property.” (Pl.’s Opp. 2:15–16.)
Plaintiffs argue in opposition that the scope of the requests has been
limited to the production of about thirteen monthly bank statements, which
“seek only to show whether Plaintiffs contributed to the mortgage payments
between around October 2017 and May 2018, which is DIRECTLY AT ISSUE in the
instant action.” (Pl.’s Opp., 3:11–17 [emphasis in original].) “The
Plaintiffs believe that the relevant payment information whereby they sent or
transferred money to the Defendant's bank account at the subject of the
subpoena will be found within the thirteen bank statements they are
requesting.” (Id. at 4:1–3.)
The instant production request is
unlike that in Serrata, where the subpoena at issue “called for the
production of ‘literally millions of pieces of paper’ which were located at IBM
plants throughout the world and which constituted the work product of numerous
teams of experts and scientists who had devoted as much as four or five years
to the development of the 16 complex computer devices which were the subject to
the subpoena.” (62 Cal.App.3d at 15.) Here, the request is reasonably limited
in scope as to seek the production of Moving Defendant’s bank statements for a
single checking account during a one-year period. Moreover, the requested
documents are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ causes of action for partition,
unjust enrichment, and accounting, specifically their allegations that they
deposited or transferred money into the subject checking account.
Therefore, as the Court finds the
production request is not overly broad, and seeks information directly relevant
to the action, Moving Defendant’s motion to quash on this ground is denied.
Privacy
“The right to privacy under article
I, section 1 of the California Constitution ‘extends to one's confidential
financial affairs.’ … This right embraces confidential financial information in
‘whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements,
or other account information.’” (Overstock.com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 503.) When the production of such private
information is sought by way of discovery, the burden falls on the party
asserting a privacy interest to show that their privacy interests are so
serious that they outweigh the interests of the subpoenaing party’s prospective
invasion. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.)
Here, Moving Defendant argues that
the document request invades his right of privacy under the California
Constitution. (Def.’s Mot., 8:8–9.) Moving Defendant supports this argument
with his declaration stating that “such documents reflect my private financial
information and for the most part, the information on those statements have no
relationship of any kind to the present action.” (Decl. of Carlos Ruben
Valverde, ¶ 3.)
In opposition, Plaintiffs argue
that the subpoenaed bank statements would lead to evidence “supporting
Plaintiffs' assertion that they contributed towards the mortgage payments
between around October 2017 and May 2018 by transferring or depositing funds to
[Moving Defendant’s] Bank of America checking account.” (Pl.’s Opp., 6:9–11.)
Moreover, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not provide receipts for the
payments Plaintiffs allegedly made, and the relevant bank statements are
therefore necessary to document said payments. (Decl. of Omar Rodriguez, ¶ 6.)
Based on the foregoing, the Court
finds that Moving Defendant has not met his burden of showing that the extent
of his privacy interests in the requested documents are so serious as to
outweigh Plaintiffs’ interest in establishing their claims, as required under Williams.
(3 Cal.5th at 557.) Accordingly, Moving Defendant’s motion to quash on this
ground is denied.
2.
Motion for Protective Order
A party or deponent may move for a protective order before,
during, or after a deposition to control the deposition proceedings or the
information obtained thereby. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420, subd. (a).) “The
court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to
protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from
unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and
expense.” (Id., subd. (b).)
Generally, this requires a showing that the burdens involved
in the deposition proceeding clearly outweigh whatever benefits are sought to
be obtained thereby. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.020, subd. (a).) The burden is on
the moving party to establish “good cause” for whatever relief is requested:
“Generally, a deponent seeking a protective order will be required to show that
the burden, expense, or intrusiveness involved in … [the discovery procedure]
clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.” (Emerson Elec. Co. v. Superior Court (1997)
16 Cal.4th 1101, 1110.)
Here, while Moving Defendant requests that the Court consider
issuing a protective order to limit the disclosure of the documents sought by
Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena, Moving Defendant makes no further attempt to
show “good cause” warranting such a protective order. (Def.’s Mot., 2:7–8.) The
Court therefore finds that Moving Defendant has not sufficiently shown that “the
burden, expense, or intrusiveness” of the subpoena “clearly outweighs the
likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” (Emerson Elec. Co., 16
Cal.4th at 1110.)
Accordingly, the Court denies Moving Defendant’s motion for a
protective order.
3.
Sanctions
A court may award monetary
sanctions to a party who makes or opposes a motion to quash a subpoena “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).) The court may also impose
sanctions on a party who misuses the discovery process, or upon one who
unsuccessfully asserts that another has done so. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030,
subd. (a).)
Here, Moving Defendant requests sanctions in the total
amount of $3,525.00 to be imposed on Plaintiffs and their attorney. This amount
includes 7 hours of Moving Defendant’s attorney’s time working on this motion,
at his hourly billing rate of $495.00 per hour, plus a $60 filing fee for the
motion. (Decl. of Raffy Boulgourjian, ¶ 5.)
As discussed above. the Court denies the instant motion, therefore
Moving Defendant’s request for sanctions is accordingly denied.
CONCLUSION
Moving Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiffs’ 10/20/22
deposition subpoena to C T Corporation System for the production of business
records is denied. Moving Defendant’s motion for protective order and request
for sanctions are denied.