Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV26098, Date: 2025-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV26098    Hearing Date: March 28, 2025    Dept: 29

Bautista v. Longfellow Village Homeowners’ Association
23STCV26098
Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Sandy Lai.

Tentative

The Court, on its own motion, continues the hearing for approximately 7 days.

The Court notes the following.

First, Defendant Lai may well have a right to resist or limit the discovery based on a claim of attorney-client privilege, but some of the responsive documents (if they exist) are almost certainly not subject to the attorney-client privilege – including, for example, recorded deeds, court filings, and court orders.

Second, if the primary issue for which the subpoenaed records are sought is property ownership, can this issue be resolved by simpler means, such as a stipulation or a request for admission?

Third, a party claiming that the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine is a basis to resist or limit discovery has the initial burden of establishing the factual basis for the claim.  (Zimmerman v. Super. Ct. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 389, 402; Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 889, 911 [party asserting attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine “must prove the preliminary facts” to show that protection applies]; Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Super. Ct. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 711, 727-728.)  This is sometimes done through the creation and production of a privilege log.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (c)(1); Best Products, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1188-1189; Wellpoint Health Networks v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110, 129-130.) “The information in the privilege log must be sufficiently specific to allow a determination of whether each withheld document is or is not [in] fact privileged.” (Wellpoint, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at 130.)  To assess Defendant’s claims of privilege, the Court may require the creation of a privilege log.   

Moving party to give notice.