Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV34489, Date: 2024-10-07 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: 22STCV34489    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:              Defendants RWF Holdings, Inc., Meir Levin, and Mark Mintz 

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Simon Property Group, L.P.

Motion to Quash Amended Deposition Subpoena

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

DISCUSSION

Defendants RWF Holdings, Inc., Meir Levin, and Mark Mintz (“Defendants”) move the court for an order quashing the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records issued to U.S. Bank National Association by plaintiff Simon Property Group, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) or, in the alternative, issuing a protective order.  (Weiss Decl., Ex. 1 to Ex. D, Subpoena.)

As a threshold matter, the court notes, as Plaintiff has raised, that Defendants did not file a separate statement.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (a)(5) [“The motions that require a separate statement include a motion: [¶¶] (5) To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition”].)  In reply, Defendants contend that no separate statement was required because no responses were served.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345, subd. (b)(1) [a separate statement is not required “[w]hen no response has been provided to the request for discovery”].)  The court agrees.  Moreover, even if a separate statement were required, Plaintiff has not shown that it has been prejudiced by Defendants’ failure to file a separate statement.

The court finds that document demands numbers 1 and 2 are overbroad as to time and therefore limits the demands to the time period of August 1, 2021 (i.e., one year before the subject transfer is alleged to have taken place) to the present.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1; Weiss Decl., Ex. 1 to Ex. D, Subpoena, Attachment 3, ¶¶ C [defining relevant time period], 1-2; Compl., ¶ 38, subd. (f).)

ORDER

            The court grants in part and denies in part defendants RWF Holdings, Inc., Meir Levin, and Mark Mintz’s motion to quash amended deposition subpoena for production of business records as follows.

            The court orders that the Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records issued to U.S. Bank National Association is modified to request the production of documents specified in document demands numbers 1 and 2 from the time period of August 1, 2021, to the present.

            The court orders defendants RWF Holdings, Inc., Meir Levin, and Mark Mintz to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 7, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court