Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00344, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00344    Hearing Date: May 17, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

Plaintiff Bradley Ranch Co-Owners LLC (“Plaintiff”) issued a subpoena (“Subpoena”) to First Republic Bank for the financial records of defendant Ann Logan (“Defendant”) from January 1, 2021, to the present.  The Subpoena specifically requests all account agreements, beneficiary designations, documents signed by Defendant and signature cards, all account statements canceled checks, deposits, deposit slips, wire transfers to and from, wire transfer requests, withdrawals, and withdrawal slips, and confirmations, and all correspondence, instructions, directions, requests, disbursements, and account termination documents, and every such record, including those existing in electronic or magnetic form.  (Motion, Ex. A.) 

Defendant moves to modify the deposition subpoena as overbroad because she has already produced relevant bank statements for the months of October 2021 to June 2022.  Defendant requests that the Court modify the subpoena and enter a protective order designating any record produced in response to the Subpoena as “CONFIDENTIAL” and limiting their use to this action. 

Plaintiff alleges that Christy Snyder Bradley (“Bradley”) was its sole manager and was authorized to sell its primary asset of 120 acres of farmland for $3.15 million.  (Compl., ¶ 1.)  The net sale proceeds were deposited into Plaintiff’s bank account and, after the sale, Bradley allegedly embezzled those proceeds, plus an additional $53,681.65, for a total of $3.11 million.  (Ibid.)  Plaintiff alleges that from September 8, 2021, to October 20, 2021, Bradley paid, transferred, and/or delivered money to Defendant in an unknown sum, and that, specifically, on October 20, 2021, Defendant received $300,000 by wire transfer.  (Compl., ¶¶ 24, 27.) 

In evaluating invasions of privacy in discovery, “[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 v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 553, citing Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)

Defendant argues that she is only alleged to have received funds by wire transfer from September 8, 2021 through October 20, 2021, therefore the Subpoena is overbroad.  Defendant suggests that the Court should modify the Subpoena to track the allegations of the operative complaint.  (Motion, p. 6.) 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant admitted to receiving dozens of transfers from Bradley, and that it is currently aware of only one wire transfer of $300,000 because it was the only transaction made directly from its bank account to Defendant.  (Opp., p. 4; Crosby Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Plaintiff’s counsel declares that before Defendant retained counsel, she spoke with his office on several occasions from June 30, 2022 to July 6, 2022 and admitted to receiving several million dollars by way of dozens of wire transfers.  (Crosby Decl., ¶ 3.)  Also, on March 31, 2023, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s counsel 45 pages of redacted financial statements from October 2021 to June 2022 showing 15 transfers by Bradley to Defendant only totaling $723,190.  (Crosby Decl., ¶ 4.)  

Plaintiff argues that $2.8 million remains unaccounted for after Bradley transferred those funds to her personal accounts and then disbursed them to others, including Defendant.  Plaintiff also argues that the information sought is not available by alternative means because Bradley has asserted her 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination throughout these proceedings.  (Opp., p. 5.)  Therefore, there are no means of tracing the stolen funds other than reviewing Bradley and Defendant’s financial records.  Plaintiff also notes that a protective order has already been entered on March 20, 2023. 

On reply, Defendant argues that she has already provided Plaintiff with the necessary information because she has already produced all bank statements from First Republic Bank in which Bradley’s name appears.  Defense counsel states that the only information redacted from those statements was Defendant’s account number and address and he only withheld the statements from that account which “did not contain the names Bradley Ranch Co-Owners LLC or Christy Bradley, or any clear derivatives of those names.”  (Mueller Decl., ¶ 4.)  Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not shown why additional records are necessary and why an audit is necessary given this prior production.  Defendant also points out that despite the agreement between the parties regarding the treatment of confidential documents, Plaintiff improperly filed the opposition containing confidential information without filing a motion to seal, therefore the Court should order the opposition papers sealed and order Plaintiff to resubmit its opposition with all confidential information redacted.  (Reply, p.  3.) 

The Court notes that Defendant has only produced statements from one account at First Republic Bank and she does not state under penalty of perjury that this is the only account at First Republic Bank that she has that would evidence any transfers of funds from Bradley.  Also, Defendant purportedly stated that she received millions of dollars, but the produced statements only show that she received $723,190, meaning that a large amount of money remains unaccounted for.  (Crosby Decl., ¶ 4.)   For these reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion.

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for an order sealing Plaintiff’s opposition.  The parties are cautioned to adhere to the terms of their stipulation in their filings going forward. 

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 17th 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.