Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV28918, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 21STCV28918    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Levon Guyumjan     

RESPONDING PARTY:       Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company

(1)   Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to East West Bank

(2)   Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena to Midland Mortgage Investors Trust

The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers filed in connection with each motion.

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO EAST WEST BANK

Plaintiff Levon Guyumjan (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order quashing the deposition subpoena for the production of business records served by defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“Defendant”) to third party East West Bank.  Plaintiff moves for this relief on the grounds that the documents seek irrelevant information and the production of information protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy.

The court finds that Plaintiff did not comply with the requirements to file a motion to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition and therefore exercises its discretion to deny the motion. 

“Any motion involving the content of a discovery request or the responses to such a request must be accompanied by a separate statement.  The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: [¶¶] (5) To compel or quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition.”  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).)  The separate statement must provide all the information necessary to understand each discovery request and all the responses that are at issue.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (c).)  The court has the discretion to deny a discovery motion for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 893 [concluding, in reviewing the denial of a motion to compel discovery, that because the parties did not comply with rule 3.1345, “the trial court was well within its discretion to deny the motion to compel discovery on that basis”].)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to “quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition” because Plaintiff contends that the documents requested are irrelevant and seek the production of information that is protected by his right to privacy.  Thus, Plaintiff was required to file a separate statement that included the text of each challenged request and the reasons for quashing the subpoena as to those requests.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subds. (a)(5), (c).)  Plaintiff did not file a separate statement with the court and did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345.

The court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena served on East West Bank.  (Mills, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 893.)

The court denies Defendant’s request for an award of sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff because the court finds that Plaintiff did not make the motion in bad faith or without substantial justification.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA TO MIDLAND MORTGAGE INVESTORS TRUST

Plaintiff moves the court for an order quashing the deposition subpoena for the production of business records served by Defendant on Midland Mortgage Investors Trust.  Plaintiff moves for this relief on the ground that the deposition subpoena demands the production of documents that are irrelevant or protected by Plaintiff’s right of privacy.

As set forth above, Plaintiff moves the court for an order “to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition” and was therefore required to file a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5).)  However, Plaintiff did not file a separate statement with the court.  The court therefore exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiff’s motion to quash the deposition subpoena served on Midland Mortgage Investors Trust.  (Mills, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 893.)

The court denies Defendant’s request for an award of sanctions in the amount of $900 against Plaintiff because the court finds that Plaintiff did not make the motion in bad faith or without substantial justification.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

ORDER

The court denies plaintiff Levon Guyumjan’s motion to quash deposition subpoena to East West Bank.

The court denies plaintiff Levon Guyumjan’s motion to quash deposition subpoena to Midland Mortgage Investors Trust.

The court orders defendant State Farm General Insurance Company to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 7, 2023

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court