Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV08306, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08306    Hearing Date: November 18, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

 

 

HEARING DATE:     November 18, 2024                           TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

                                                          

CASE:                         SCP 1740 Ocean Avenue, LLC v. 269 South Lafayette Park Place, LP, et al.  

 

CASE NO.:                 24STCV08306           

 

MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA FOR BUSINESS RECORDS

 

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff SCP 1740 Ocean Avenue, LLC

 

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants 269 South Lafayette Park Place, LP and Santee Court Phase II Owner, LLC

 

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

           

            This is an action for declaratory relief and specific performance that was filed on April 2, 2024. Plaintiff is the owner and operator of the Le Merigot Hotel in Santa Monica and leases the land on which the property is situated from Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not comply with the procedure specified in the lease agreement for appraisal of the property to determine the rent which Plaintiff would be charged.

 

Plaintiff moves to quash a third-party subpoena for business records propounded to Snell & Wilmer, LLP.

           

TENTATIVE RULING:

 

            Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena is DENIED.

 

            Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED. 

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Plaintiff moves to quash a third-party subpoena for business records propounded to Snell & Wilmer, LLP.

 

//

Legal Standard

 

            Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 provides:

 

If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, 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, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.

 

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).) There is no meet and confer requirement in section 1987.1. There is also no requirement for a separate statement when no response has been provided to the request for discovery. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1345(b)(1).) Furthermore, there is no requirement for a showing of good cause for production of documents in connection with a deposition subpoena. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2020.510(b); Terry v. SLICO (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 352, 358.)

 

Analysis

 

            Plaintiff moves to quash a third-party subpoena for business records propounded to Snell & Wilmer, LLP. Defendants served the subpoena on Snell & Wilmer on August 7, 2024. (Declaration of Gregory A. Nylen ISO Mot. ¶ 3; Exh. 1.) Attachment 3 to the Subpoena specifies the categories of records sought, as relevant to this motion, as follows:

 

1.      All non-privileged documents related to the property.

 

2.      All non-privileged communications related to the property.

 

3.      All non-privileged documents related to the “ground lease,” i.e., the lease for the land on which the property is situated.

 

4.      All non-privileged communications related to the ground lease.

 

5.      All non-privileged documents related to the “landlord agreement,” defined as the July 1, 2022 Landlord Agreement Regarding Leasehold Deed of Trust.

 

6.      All non-privileged communications related to the landlord agreement.

 

[. . . ]

 

10.  All non-privileged documents relating to any of the allegations in the Complaint.

 

11.  All non-privileged communications with any person relating to any of the allegations in the Complaint.

 

(See Nylen Decl. Exh. 1 Attach. 3.)

 

            Plaintiff contends that categories 1 through 6 and 10 through 11 are overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The Court disagrees. Categories 1, 2, 5, and 6 relate, on their face, to the property that is the subject of this real property dispute and are therefore plainly relevant to the case. Similarly, categories 3 and 4 relate directly to the lease agreement from which Plaintiff’s claims arise. Moreover, categories 10 and 11 relate directly to the Complaint by their express terms. Plaintiff’s assertions that these categories are irrelevant, vague, ambiguous, and overbroad are not persuasive. Nor is the Court moved by Plaintiff’s unsupported conclusion that the requests are unduly burdensome.

 

Plaintiff also asserts that the document requests seek material which is confidential, sensitive, or private, but make no effort to demonstrate (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances; or (3) a threatened intrusion which is serious. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552.) Plaintiff has therefore failed to justify this objection.

 

As Plaintiff has not demonstrated the sufficiency of any of its objections to the subpoena, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to an order quashing the subpoena.

 

Sanctions

 

            Defendants demand sanctions against Plaintiff and its counsel in the extraordinary amount of $37,692.50 in fees purportedly incurred in opposing this motion.

 

The Court has discretion to award reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred in making or opposing a motion under Section 1987.1 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 (a).)

 

            Defendants contend that their counsel incurred an egregious 31.5 hours of attorney time on this motion: 16 hours of attorney time at $950 per hour, 13 hours of attorney time at $1,060 per hour, and 2.5 hours of attorney time at $1,485 per hour, for a total of $32,692.50, plus a further $5,000 in anticipated fees in connection with the hearing on this motion. (Declaration of Sarah E. Moses ISO Opp. ¶ 8.) This request is unreasonably inflated to the point of absurdity. It should not require 31.5 hours of attorney time for counsel charging such high rates to prepare an opposition to a routine discovery motion such as this, no matter how contentious. The Court therefore denies Defendants’ request for sanctions as unreasonably inflated. (Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal. 4th 970, 989-991.)

 

CONCLUSION:

 

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Third-Party Subpoena is DENIED.

 

            Defendants’ Request for Sanctions is DENIED.  

 

            Moving Party to give notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

Dated: November 18, 2024                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 


            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.