Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV28104, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28104    Hearing Date: May 18, 2023    Dept: 39

Steve Javidzad, et al. v. Adler Construction, Inc., et al.

Case No. 22STCV28104

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena

            Plaintiffs Steve Javidzad and Laleh Javidzad (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this wrongful eviction case against Eric Adler; Adler Construction, Inc. (“Adler Construction); and Adler Ventures, Inc. (“Adler Ventures”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiffs allege that they rented a property in Beverly Hills with a monthly rent of $12,500 from Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants wrongfully entered the property on September 2, 2021, and changed the locks, constituting an unlawful eviction.  Defendants filed a cross-complaint alleging a cause of action for breach of contract and related claims.  Defendants allege that Plaintiffs stopped making rental payments in December 2019, and then later falsely claimed not to be able to pay the rent due to the pandemic. 

Defendants served a deposition subpoena on Change Lending, LLC (“Change Lending”), seeking all loan documents in connection with a loan Change Lending made to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs move to quash that subpoena.  If a subpoena requires the production of documents, the Court may quash the subpoena entirely or modify it.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.1, subd. (a).)  In ruling on a motion to quash, “the Court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)

The motion is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiffs have a right to privacy in their finances.  (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656-657.)  However, the requested documents are relevant to claims in litigation that Plaintiffs experienced financial distress due to the pandemic.  Therefore, the motion is granted in all respects except one: Plaintiffs are correct that tax returns and accompanying forms/schedules are privileged.  (Brown v. Sup. Ct. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 143-144.)  The privilege does not apply to the underlying records and data that the party used to prepare the returns. 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:

1.         Defendants’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.

2.         Change Lending shall produce all subpoenaed documents except for Plaintiffs’ tax returns and the underlying forms/schedules that accompany the tax returns.

3.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.