Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 21STCV34889 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 21STCV34889, Date: 2023-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34889 Hearing Date: January 25, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: January 25, 2023¿¿

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 21STCV34889

¿¿

CASE NAME: Conjunction junction, LLC v. Ashley Erin Ellison, et al

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Custodian of Records, City of Rancho Palos Verdes

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Conjunction Junction, LLC and Cross-Defendant, Peppertree, LLC

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: None set¿

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Quash Plaintiff, Conjunction Junction, LLC’s Subpoena of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or in the alternative, to Modify the Subpoena and Enter a Protective Order

Tentative Rulings: (1) ARGUE. The Court views the expanse of the SDT to be overly broad but the parties were prevented by the intervening holidays and the time limits for filing a MTQ from resolving this dispute between them before the MTQ was filed. The Court is inclined to continue the hearing or to grant the Motion in part, and to order the parties to complete their meet-and-confer process to see if agreement can be reached on a more reasonable time period, number of parcels, and related issues. The City has preserved its right to object to any privileged materials embraced by the subpoena.

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On February 9, 2022, Cross-Complainant, Ashley Erin Ellison, as trustee of the Porter Trust (“Cross-Complainant”) filed this action against Cross-Defendant, Conjunction Junction, LLC (“Cross-Defendant”), and DOES 1 through 100. On March 10, 2022, Cross-Complainant filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint. On August 15, 2022, the Cross-Complainant filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SACC”) alleging a cause of action for quiet title.

This is a quiet title action involving a dispute to two parcels of property. The first parcel is owned by Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Conjunction Junction LLC (“Cross-Defendant”), with no street address but designated as APN 7572-016-024 (“CJ Parcel”). The second parcel is owned by Defendant/Cross-Complainant Ashley Erin Ellison, as Trustee of The Porter Trust (“Cross-Complainant”) with a street address of 1 Pomegranate Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275 (“Porter Parcel”).

On September 22, 2021, Cross-Defendant commenced this action by filing the Complaint alleging that the house, driveway, and outlying buildings on the Porter Parcel are encroaching on CJ Parcel and Cross-Complainant has failed to remedy these conditions. On July 5, 2022, Cross-Complainant filed the operative SACC that Cross-Complainant has a prescriptive easement to the disputed property. The SACC contains a sole claim to quiet title.

On December 6, 2022, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (“City”) (a non-party to litigation) for “all documents referencing the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide” on various parcels, including but not limited to “all building permits,” as well as “all communications with the Portuguese Bend Community regarding the Portuguese Bend Landslide from 2000 to present.” The subpoena requires the City to designate a “person most knowledgeable” to provide testimony covering a 22-year period. The City promptly began a meet-and-confer process with Plaintiff’s counsel, but efforts to resolve a dispute over the breadth of the requested documents was completed by the City’s deadline to move to quash the subpoena. The City thus protectively filed its Motion to Quash the subpoena, or in the alternative, modify the Subpoena and enter a protective order to limit the documents and information which Plaintiff seeks to obtain.

B. Procedural¿¿

On December 29, 2022, City filed its Motion to Quash. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff, Conjunction Junction, LLC and Cross-Defendant, Peppertree, LLC filed an opposition. On January 17, 2023, City filed a reply brief.

¿II. MOVING PARTY’S GROUNDS FOR THE DEMURRER¿¿

City filed its Motion to Quash based on the following grounds. It claims: (1) Plaintiff’s subpoena is overly broad and unduly burdensome; (2) Plaintiff’s subpoena seeks access to irrelevant records; and (3) City lacks personnel sufficiently knowledgeable

III. MEET AND CONFER

In attempt to amicably resolve the issues presented in this Motion, counsel for City via exchanges of emails “met and conferred” with Plaintiff’s counsel, as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420(a). However, City’s attempts to reach an informal resolution were unfruitful, resulting in City’s need to file the instant Motion. In Plaintiff’s opposition, they concede to the same. (Declaration of Isaac C. Young (“Young Decl.”), ¶ 10, Exhibits B, G, H.)

IV. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Analysis

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 states that “[i]f a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court’s own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1(a).) “In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” (Ibid.)

Upon the motion of any party affected, “[t]he 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subds. (a), (b).) The burden of proof is generally on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.) The concept of good cause requires a showing of specific facts demonstrating undue burden, etc., and justifying the relief sought. (See Goodman v. Citizens Life & Casualty Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.3d 807, 819.) The facts are normally established in declarations by counsel for the party seeking the protective order. The declaration must contain competent evidence - i.e., first-hand knowledge of the facts. Hearsay allegations on information and belief and conclusory statements that a particular relief is necessary are generally not enough. (Ibid.)

B. Discussion

City indicates that Plaintiff issued a subpoena for “all documents referencing the effects of the Portuguese Bend Landslide” on various parcels, including but not limited to “all building permits,” as well as “all communications with the Portuguese Bend Community regarding the Portuguese Bend Landslide from 2000 to present.” The subpoena requires the City to designate a “person most knowledgeable” to provide testimony covering a 22 year period. However, City asserts that the legal and factual issues raised in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint only references disputes occurring from 2012 to present. City argues that the records sought by the subpoena are overbroad and potentially encompasses decades prior to the issues in dispute in the quiet title action. City asserts that Plaintiff has not addressed the need for the additional ten years of documents sought herein.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that City’s Motion fails procedurally and substantially. First, Plaintiff argues that City’s motion fails procedurally because it was not filed with a separate statement. However, as noted in City’s reply, this Court has discretion to deny a motion to quash on that ground or to proceed to the merits even in its absence. The Court here exercises its discretion to address the merits.

Plaintiff also asserted that City’s motion fails substantively as well. Plaintiff argues that City’s attorney offered conclusory statements by the attorneys that the production were overly broad or unduly burdensome without any facts, such as a declaration of the custodian, to support the conclusions. Plaintiff notes that the records sought are relevant because Cross-Defendant is claiming a variety of easement rights across multiple parcels governed both by the City and Cross-Defendant Portuguese Bend Community Association. Cross-Defendant further asserts that they built their improvements (presumably subject to permits) on Plaintiff’s property originally, and that the improvements did not move onto Plaintiff’s property due to the Portuguese Bend Landslide. (Third Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 23-24.) Therefore, Plaintiff asserts it must now do discovery into the effects of the landslide, whether the permits were issued to build on Plaintiff’s property, how the City has addressed the landslide historically regarding easements and improvements that have shifted, etc. Plaintiff notes that there are no specific requests identified in a separate statement to show that the specific request is somehow irrelevant, and City did not identify which categories it feels it has zero knowledge of.

IV. CONCLUSION¿¿

¿¿¿

The Court views the Subpoena to be overly broad and that the parties ought to be able to narrow its scope. The City indicates its willingness to provide a PMK and to produce a more tailored group of documents. The Court is inclined to continue the hearing for up to a month or to grant the Motion in part and to order the parties to complete their meet-and-confer process on a reduced time period, number of parcels, and related issues. The City has preserved its right to object to any privileged materials embraced by the subpoena.