Case Name: 801 Boggs LLC v. Golden Bay Properties. LLC, et al.
Case No.: 2017-1-CV-309039

James Lowder is the President of All Temperature Service Air Conditioning, Inc. (“ATS”). On October 12, 2016, 801 Boggs LLC (“Plaintiff”) and defendants Golden Bay Properties, LLC (“GBP”), Raymond Vuong, Paul Vuong, Sun Vuong and Ho Vuong (collectively, “Defendants”) entered into an agreement regarding the purchase of commercial real estate. The contract contained a lease back provision, wherein Defendants could lease back the subject property, provided they allowed reasonable access to the property for Plaintiff to make improvements to the property. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to disclose the existence of shared water service, a fire suppression system that was not up to code, and removal of circuit breakers. Plaintiff additionally alleges Defendants’ failure to allow reasonable access to the property. In May 2018, GBP served deposition subpoenas on Fremont Bank, Wells Fargo Bank and ATS, requesting certain documents. Plaintiff moves to quash the deposition subpoenas.

The separate statement is not proper

As GBP argues, Plaintiff’s separate statements in support of each motion is not proper. Rule of Court 3.1345, subdivision (c) states that: “[t]he separate statement must include—for each discovery request (e.g. each interrogatory, request for admission, deposition question, or inspection demand) to which a further response, answer, or production is requested… The text of the request, interrogatory, question, or inspection demand; [and t]he text of each response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers….” (Rule of Court 3.1345, subd. (c).) Here, Plaintiff’s separate statements each list certain categories of documents and does not for each category provide Plaintiff’s response, answer, or objection, and any further responses or answers. On this basis, the motions to quash are DENIED.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s arguments and objections are without merit

Motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to ATS

Even if Plaintiff had provided a proper separate statement, Plaintiff’s objections and arguments are without merit as to the motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to ATS. The subpoena sought seven categories of documents relating to Lowder, Plaintiff, the subject premises, inspections or reports on inspection performed on the subject premises, the work performed at the subject preference, ATS’ tenancy at the subject premises and bank account records related to any account used to pay for repairs or improvements at the subject premises. Plaintiff objects to unidentified categories as irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome, invading Plaintiff’s right to privacy, and failing to use the least intrusive means possible in obtaining such information.

However, the information is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages and the objection based on relevancy is OVERRULED. Plaintiff also fails to demonstrate that the requests are overbroad or unduly burdensome. Plaintiff asserts that the request is unlimited as to the scope of time and could be 20 years of information; however, GBP notes that the sale of the property at issue occurred in 2016 and prior to that date, neither Plaintiff, ATS nor Lowder had any connection with the property, and Plaintiff was registered merely in June 2014. GBP also agrees to limit any production to 2016 to the present. The objections based on undue burden and overbreadth are without merit and OVERRULED.

Lastly, Plaintiff asserts that the requested documents infringe on Plaintiff’s financial privacy. However, the documents necessarily pertain to either Lowder’s financial records as pertaining to the subject premises in his capacity as a party to the agreement—which are directly relevant to the instant action—or to Plaintiff or ATS. Corporations do not enjoy a constitutional right of privacy. (See Roberts v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 770, 791 (stating that “[t]he constitutional provision [regarding the right of privacy] simply does not apply to corporations”); see also SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Western Albuquerque Land Holdings, LLC) (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 755 (stating “corporations do not have a right of privacy protected by the California Constitution”).) The relevance of this information outweighs any right of privacy by Plaintiff and ATS as this information relates directly to Plaintiff’s damages. (See Alch v. Super. Ct. (Time Warner Entertainment Co.) (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1431 (production required where information is “essential to the fair resolution of their lawsuit” and court “evaluate[s] the invasion of the objector’s privacy ‘based on the extent to which it furthers legitimate and important competing interests”).) The motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to ATS is DENIED for this reason also.

Motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to Fremont Bank and Wells Fargo Bank

Likewise, even if Plaintiff had provided a proper separate statement, Plaintiff’s objections and arguments are without merit as to the motion to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to Wells Fargo Bank and Fremont Bank. The two subpoenas sought documents relating to Plaintiff, Lowder, ATS and the subject property and loans for work performed at the subject property from either January 1, 2016 (Wells Fargo Bank) or January 1, 2017 (Fremont Bank). Plaintiff makes the same objections; however, as with its other objections, the objections based on relevancy, overbreadth and undue burden are unsupported.

Further, regarding the objection on the ground that the categories violate Plaintiff or ATS’ rights of privacy, as with the other subpoena, corporations do not enjoy a constitutional right of privacy, and the relevance of the information outweigh Plaintiff and ATS’ rights of privacy. Accordingly, the objections based on relevancy, undue burden, overbreadth and Plaintiff or ATS’ rights of privacy are OVERRULED.

As to the documents from the banks regarding Lowder, again, the Court finds that these documents are directly relevant to Plaintiff’s damages. However, with regards to the category of documents relating to Mr. Lowder, solely in his personal capacity, the Parties shall stipulate to enter into a protective order consistent with the model confidentiality order endorsed by the complex litigation department within 10 days. (See GT, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Sentinel Publishers, Inc.) (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748, 754 (stating that although there is no presumption in favor of a protective order when producing financial information, “where the financial information goes to the heart of the cause of action itself… the party seeking the protective order is required to meet the usual burden of showing ‘good cause’”).) The motions to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to Wells Fargo Bank and Fremont Bank are DENIED for these reasons also.

The Court will prepare the Order.