Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 21CHCV00490, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00490    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51 

Date: 1/12/23 

Case #21CHCV00490

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA 

Motion filed: 11/9/22

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Jorge Apolinar

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Teresa J. Apolinar

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order quashing Plaintiff’s 10/20/22 Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records, directed to Vanguard Group, Inc.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion to quash is 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 action arises out of a claim by a mother, Plaintiff Teresa J. Apolinar (“Plaintiff”), that her son, Defendant Jorge Apolinar (“Defendant”), defrauded her into transferring the title to certain real property (2 parcels in Los Angeles County and 1 parcel in Kern County) to him.¿ 

On 6/30/21, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Financial Elder Abuse;¿(3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Constructive Fraud; (5) Intentional Misrepresentation;¿(6) Negligent Misrepresentation; (7) Conversion; (8) Cancellation of Instruments;¿(9) Constructive Trust and (10) Accounting. On 3/1/22, Plaintiff filed her operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant, alleging the same causes of action, with the additional cause of action for Resulting Trust. 

On 10/6/22, Plaintiff served her deposition subpoena to The Vanguard Group, Inc. On 11/9/22, Defendant filed the instant motion. On 12/29/22, Plaintiff filed her opposition. No reply has been filed to date. 

ANALYSIS

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, Defendant moves to quash Plaintiff’s 10/6/22 deposition subpoena to nonparty The Vanguard Group, Inc. for the production of documents relating to the parties’ bank accounts, on the bases that the requests are overbroad and seek documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Def.’s Mot., 3:6–7.)

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, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s’ deposition subpoena is overbroad because it “seeks documents that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Def.’s Mot., 3:6–7.) Plaintiff argues in opposition that she is entitled to the requested financial documents because they “are highly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims for financial elder abuse and fraud.” (Pl.’s Opp., 3:25–4:2.)

Plaintiff contends that “Defendant had always transferred funds out of the [parties’] joint account and into other undisclosed accounts, including but not limited to two separate Vanguard investment accounts. These accounts were never disclosed.” (Id., 1:12 – 14.) As such, on 9/7/22, Plaintiff propounded her second set of requests for production of documents on Defendant, seeking, inter alia, all documents relating to any Vanguard accounts held or controlled by both parties. (Ex. 1 to Pl.’s Opp.) On 12/16/22, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendant’s responses to these requests, finding that “the financial documents and communications she seeks are relevant to her claims against Defendant, which include financial elder abuse, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and conversion.” (12/16/22 Minute Order, p. 4.)

Additionally, the instant production requests are unlike those 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 documents relating to the parties’ Vanguard accounts. (Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot.) Moreover, as this Court has previously ruled, the requested documents are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s causes of action. (12/16/22 Minute Order, p. 4.)

Therefore, the Court similarly finds the instant deposition subpoena production request is not overly broad, and seeks information directly relevant to the action. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash is denied.

Separate Statement

            Plaintiff further argues that the instant motion should be denied because Defendant failed to file an attached separate statement pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. (Pl.’s Opp, 5:23–25.) A motion to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition must be accompanied by a separate statement, except when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(5) and (b)(1).) As the Court denies the instant motion as set forth above, this issue is moot.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion to quash Plaintiff’s 10/6/22 deposition subpoena to The Vanguard Group, Inc. for the production of business records is denied.