Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00121, Date: 2023-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00121    Hearing Date: January 30, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Elikin Mauricio Yepes’s Motion to Quash Defendant Erick Humberto Guzman’s Subpoenas for Production of Business Records from Wells Fargo and Citibank

Respondent: Defendant Erick Humberto Guzman

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Elikin Mauricio Yepes’s Motion to Quash Defendant Erick Humberto Guzman’s Subpoenas for Production of Business Records from Wells Fargo and Citibank is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from a dispute over real property. Elikin Mauricio Yepes (Yepes), Merilynn A. Miller-Williams (Miller-Williams), and Erick Humberto Guzman (Guzman) own real property in West Covina as joint tenants. On February 16, 2021, Yepes filed a verified complaint against Miller-Williams, Guzman, and Does 1-10, alleging (1) partition and (2) accounting.

On November 10, 2021, Yepes filed a verified First Amended Complaint (FAC) against the same defendants alleging the following causes of action: (1) partition, (2) accounting, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) fraud, and (6) misappropriation. On January 26, 2022, the court sustained Guzman’s demurrer to Yepes’s FAC in part.

On February 23, 2022, Yepes filed a verified Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against the same defendants alleging the same causes of action. On May 5, the court sustained Guzman’s demurrer to Yepes’s SAC without leave to amend and sustained Miller-Williams’ demurrer to Yepes’s SAC with leave to amend.

On June 2, 2022, Yepes filed a verified Third Amended Complaint (TAC) against the same defendants, alleging the following causes of action: (1) partition, (2) accounting, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, and (4) misappropriation.

On July 6, 2022, Guzman filed a cross-complaint against Yepes and Roes 1-10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) quiet title, (2) constructive trust, (3) breach of contract, (4) fraud, and (5) declaratory relief.

On December 30, 2022, Yepes filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for January 30, 2023. A final status conference is also set for August 8 and a non-jury trial is set for August 18.

ANALYSIS

Yepes moves to quash Guzman’s subpoena for production of business records from Wells Fargo and Citibank, as well as for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,460. For the following reasons, the court finds no merit to the motion and declines to award sanctions.

If 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. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands such as unreasonable violations of the right of privacy.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1.) 

An individual’s right of privacy is protected by the California Constitution. (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1.) In ruling on discovery motions, the Court must balance the privacy claims of the responding party with the requesting party’s need for the information. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718-722.)¿ The responding party, as the party asserting the right of privacy, bears the initial burden of demonstrating (1) a “legally protected privacy interest”; (2) an “objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances”; and (3) a “threatened intrusion that is serious.” (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552 (Williams).) If this standard is met, requesting party must then show that the requested documents are “directly relevant” to the litigation. (Tylo v. Superior Court (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1387, citing Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 858-859.)¿ 

“Legally recognized privacy interests [include] . . . interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information (‘informational privacy’) .  .  .  .”  (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 (Hill).)  “A particular class of information is private when well-established social norms recognize the need to maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity.”  (Ibid.)

In this case, Yepes seeks to quash subpoenas from Guzman for all documents relating to Yepes’s bank accounts with Wells Fargo and Citibank from January 1, 2010, to the present. (Lepe Decl., Ex. B, C.) First, Yepes contends personal financial information is protected within the “zone of privacy.” (See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656 (Valley Bank).) The court agrees and notes that courts consistently recognize that bank customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to their financial information. (Athearn v. State Bar (1977) 20 Cal.3d 232, 235, citing Valley Bank, supra, 15 Cal.3d 652, and Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238.)

However, even if Guzman’s subpoenas were a serious intrusion of Yepes’s privacy, the court finds Guzman has established the subpoenaed financial records are directly relevant to the present litigation. In 2010, Guzman alleges Yepes invested $35,000 in a stock account managed by Guzman that subsequently failed to yield a profit. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 12.) In 2013, Guzman alleges Yepes loaned Guzman $15,000 which was secured by adding Yepes to the title of the West Covina property. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 7-8.) In 2017, Guzman alleges to have repaid the loan. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 9-10.) In 2020, Guzman alleges Yepes demanded full repayment of the investment and that Yepes had not contributed any money to the West Covina property beyond the loan. (Cross-Complaint, ¶ 15-17.) Yepes alleges Yepes loaned $40,000 Guzman for the West Covina property (TAC, ¶ 26-30) and that Miller-Williams and Guzman failed to provide funds from refinancing the West Covina property in 2015 (TAC, ¶ 19, 34-35).

Thus, the financial dealings of both parties are at issue in this action and directly relevant starting with the alleged financial investment in 2010. Furthermore, while not dispositive, the court notes Yepes has issued the same subpoenas for Guzman’s financial records. (Lepe Decl., ¶ 5-6, Ex. D, C.) While Yepes argues the financial records are unduly prejudicial, “admissibility is not a prerequisite to discoverability.” (See Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1492.) Accordingly, the court DENIES Yepes’s motion.

Yepes also requests sanctions against Guzman pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a) and section 2025.410, subdivision (d). However, because Yepes did not prevail on the motion to quash Guzman’s subpoenas, the court DENIES the request for sanctions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Yepes’s motion to quash Guzman’s subpoenas to Wells Fargo and Citibank is DENIED.