Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV28284, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV28284    Hearing Date: March 22, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff Armando Vazquez-Ramos, as Successor Trustee of the Lourdes R. Vazquez Family Living Trust of 2004 (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 30, 2021 against, inter alia, Defendant Fernando Ramos Vazquez.

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 5, 2023. The FAC alleges causes of action for (1) quiet title to real property and for injunctive relief,

(2) constructive trust, (3) accounting, (4) tort of deceit, and (5) cancellations of instruments.

On February 6, 2024, Antonio Ramos Vazquez, in his individual capacity and as co-trustee of the Vazquez Brothers Living Trust of 2006; and Fernando Ramos Vazquez, in his individual capacity and as co-trustee of the Vazquez Brothers Living Trust of 2006, filed a Cross-Complaint against Armando Vazquez-Ramos in his individual capacity and as co-trustee of the Vazquez Brothers Living Trust of 2006. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) reformation of deeds and (2) declaratory relief.

In his declaration in support of the instant motion, Fernando Vazquez states that on or about September 1, 2022, Armando Vazquez-Ramos served Fernando Vazquez “with a Notice to Consumer regarding a Deposition Subpoena for Business Records for [Fernando Vazquez’s] personal tax returns from 2017 to the present.” (Fernando Vazquez Decl., ¶ 5.) Fernando Vazquez states that “[t]his Deposition Subpoena was served upon Joe Dieringer of JMD Services. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena and Notice to Consumer.” (Fernando Vazquez Decl., ¶ 5.)

On January 9, 2024, the parties participated in an Informal Discovery Conference in this action. The Court’s January 9, 2024 minute order provides, inter alia, “[i]n open court, the Informal Discovery Conference is held. The parties fulfilled their Informal Discovery Conference obligation. Plaintiff will consider withdrawing the subpoena and if so, Defendant will withdraw the Motion to Quash.” The docket for this action does not appear to show that the instant motion to quash has since been withdrawn. 

Fernando Vazquez now moves “for an order quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records served by Plaintiff ARMANDO VAZQUEZ-RAMOS…dated September 1, 2022 served on witness Joe Dieringer of JMD Services for the production of FERNANDO’s personal tax returns.” The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

In the notice of motion, Fernando Vazquez states that “[t]his Motion is based upon Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) and upon the grounds that ARMANDO’s subpoena asks for production of personal tax returns in violation of FERNANDO’s taxpayer privilege.” (Mot. at p. 2:14-17.)

The Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Joe Dieringer (herein, the “Subpoena”) is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Fernando Vazquez. (Fernando Vazquez Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.) As an initial matter, the Court notes that the Subpoena indicates, inter alia, that the records to be produced are “Continued on Attachment 3.” (Ibid.) However, it does not appear that Attachment 3 to the Subpoena was provided. Thus, the Court is unable to determine what requested records are to be produced pursuant to the Subpoena.

In addition, Fernando Vazquez states that the motion is “based upon Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 45 (d)(3).” (Notice of Motion at p. 2:15.) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 45, subdivision (d)(3)(A) provides that “[o]n timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”

The Court does not see why Fernando Vazquez relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 45. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 1, “[t]hese rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts, except as stated in Rule 81…” The instant action was not filed in a United States district court.

In light of the foregoing, the Court does not find that Fernando Vazquez has demonstrated grounds to quash the Subpoena.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Fernando Vazquez’s motion to quash is denied without prejudice.

Fernando Vazquez is ordered to provide notice of this ruling. 

DATED:  March 22, 2024                              ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court