Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00135, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00135    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This is an action to enforce a judgment obtained by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney, Anthony K. Chu (“Chu”) in an earlier employment lawsuit against New Diamond Trucking Inc. (“New Diamond Trucking”).  Plaintiff’s employment lawsuit commenced on June 29, 2016 and later added New Diamond Trucking.  (FAC, ¶ 24.) 

Chu is named as a plaintiff in this action because the judgment in the prior action, initially entered on October 30, 2019 and amended on March 10, 2020, awarded attorneys’ fees that Chu is contractually entitled to.  Plaintiff and Chu (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have named New Diamond Trucking as well as 10 other individuals including the former owner of New Diamond Trucking, Qingyu Zhang, and his wife, son, and daughter-in law (collectively, the “Zhang” Famiily”) and 3 companies as defendants in this action.  Plaintiffs allege that  the defendants are involved in fraudulent transfers preventing Plaintiff and Chu from collecting on their judgment. 

Defendants Yun Zheng and 2000 West Street LLC (“2000 West”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to quash the deposition subpoenas issued by Plaintiff to various banks seeking “[a]ll records, including but not limited to records that refer to or are, bank statements, account statements, deposit slips, online transfers, wire transfers, new account applications, signatory cards, cancelled checks, cash withdrawal slips and cash receipts related to all accounts, including but not limited to savings, checking and money market accounts, and all correspondence from and to the Bank, whether electronic or fax or wire or paper, without limitation, from January 1, 2016 to March 18, 2023.”  Plaintiff seeks Yun Zheng’s records from Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”), Bank of America, and U.S. Bank, N.A. (collectively, “the Banks”).  Plaintiff seeks 2000 West’s records from Bank of America.  

As Defendants assert substantially identical arguments, this order addresses all four motions scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2023. 

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

The framework for evaluating invasions of privacy in discovery has been clarified in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531.  In Williams, the California Supreme Court held that, generally, “[t]he party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances, and a threatened intrusion that is serious.  The party seeking information may raise in response whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves, while the party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy.  A court must then balance these competing considerations.”  (Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 553, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)

III.        DISCUSSION

“[I]ndividuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their personal financial information.”  (International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 330.)  Therefore, Defendants’ records are clearly protected.  (Valley Banks of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 655-57.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that the bank records sought are relevant because 2000 West, Yun Zheng and New Diamond Trucking and the Zhang Family are involved in convoluted business arrangements.  Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that New Diamond Trucking has provided funds to 2000 West without receiving anything reasonably equivalent in value in order to evade its obligations under the judgment.  (See SAC, ¶ 44.)  Plaintiff argues that obtaining all of Yun Zheng and 2000 West’s records will show the extent of Yun Zheng’s involvement with the Zhang Family’s businesses, including New Diamond Trucking.   

On reply, Defendants alternatively suggest that Plaintiff narrow the scope of his subpoenas to seek production of records relating to transactions with New Diamond Trucking and any other entity that Plaintiff believes was working on behalf of New Diamond Trucking.  (See Williams, 3 Cal.5th at 553.)  Defendants also rebut Plaintiff’s argument that they have waived their privacy rights to their bank records by engaging in litigation in another lawsuit pending in the State of Ohio.  (Reply, pp. 9-10.)  That lawsuit involves a dispute over Qingyu Zhang’s membership interest in 2000 West and does not show that Defendants have waived their privacy rights to their entire bank records, only those records evidencing transactions with Qingyu Zhang and other affiliates, such as New Diamond Trucking, which are the documents that Defendants are willing to provide. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to quash are GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 15th day of May, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.