Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: BC718365, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC718365    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTIES:             Defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff GSP Acquisition Corporation d/b/a Gardena Specialized Processing

Motion to Quash Subpoena and for Protective Order

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff GSP Acquisition Corporation, d/b/a Gardena Specialized Processing (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on August 21, 2018.  On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed its operative Second Amended Complaint against defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers (“Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint asserts five causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) professional negligence, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) negligent supervision, and (5) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move the court for an order (1) quashing Plaintiff’s Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records directed to third party California Department of Insurance and (2) issuing a protective order that discovery not be had regarding all complaints to the California Department of Insurance.

The court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to quash and for a protective order.  The court grants Defendants’ request to modify the subpoena to exclude requests for production numbers 10 through 13.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  The denies Defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena as to requests for production numbers 1 through 9 and Defendants’ motion for a protective order.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1987.1, 2025.420, subd. (b).) 

First, the court finds that Plaintiff’s requests for production numbers 1 through 9 are not irrelevant or overbroad and therefore denies Defendants’ request to quash the subpoena in its entirety or to modify the subpoena as to these requests.  The court finds that these requests, demanding the production of documents regarding the business entity forms, ownership documents, and merger, acquisition and sale documents concerning White & Co. and the Gallagher Defendants, who are alleged to be joint tortfeasors and joint venturers engaged in the same scheme of wrongdoing complained of by Plaintiff, are relevant to establishing the extent of each entity defendant’s liability.  (SAC ¶¶ 5, 7.)  The court notes that Defendants contend that the subpoena is overbroad especially as to Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., since Defendants contend that this entity “had no part in the facts and transactions underlying this litigation.”  (Mot., 2:25-26.)  However, Plaintiff is entitled to discover facts relating to the ownership and merger of all entities, which Plaintiff has alleged have acted as joint tortfeasors, in order to ascertain liability as to each entity and defendant, including Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc.  The court also notes that, although these requests were not limited in time at the time of service, Plaintiff has now agreed to limit the temporal scope of the requests to the 2000 to 2017 time period.  (Dardashti Decl., Ex. A.)  The court therefore denies Defendants’ motion to quash or modify the subpoena as to request for production numbers 1 through 9.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.)

Second, the court finds that Plaintiff’s request for production numbers 10 through 13 are overbroad because they seek information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  Plaintiff’s requests, demanding the production of “all” documents concerning complaints against Defendants and White & Co., are overbroad since Plaintiff may obtain documents concerning complaints against Defendants that are irrelevant and will not assist Plaintiff in proving its negligent retention, negligent supervision, and unfair competition claims.  For example, as noted by Defendants, this may lead to the production of complaints concerning subject matter entirely different from the topics alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint (such as the production of documents evidencing complaints regarding Defendants’ handling of, policies, or practices relating to different types of insurance policies).  The court notes that Plaintiff has, as set forth above, agreed to limit the temporal scope of the requests to the 2000 to 2017 time period.  (Dardashti Decl., Ex. A.)  However, the court finds that the substance of Plaintiff’s requests is overbroad for seeking the discovery of documents regarding “all” complaints against Defendants.  The court therefore grants Defendants’ motion and modifies the subpoena to order that the deponent is not required to produce documents responsive to requests for production numbers 10 through 13.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)

The court denies Defendants’ motion for a protective order barring Plaintiff from obtaining discovery regarding “all” complaints made against Defendants since the court has granted Defendants’ motion to modify the subpoena as to those requests. 

Plaintiff requests sanctions against Defendants pursuant to section 1987.2.  In light of the court’s mixed ruling on this motion, the court denies Plaintiff’s request to impose sanctions against Defendants.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

ORDER

The court grants in part and denies in part defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers’ motion to quash and for a protective order.

The court denies defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers’ motion to quash the deposition subpoena as to requests for production numbers 1 through 9.

The court grants defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers’ motion to modify the deposition subpoena as to requests for production numbers 10 through 13.  The court orders that the deponent, California Department of Insurance, is not required to produce documents responsive to requests for production numbers 10 through 13.  

The court orders defendants Arthur J. Gallagher Risk Management Services, Inc., Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. Insurance Brokers of California, Inc., and Tyler Albers to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  August 10, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court