Case Number: VC063914    Hearing Date: July 10, 2014    Dept: SEC

DOUGLAS STEEL SUPPLY CO. v. RAPID RACK INDUSTRIES, INC.
CASE NO.: VC063914
HEARING: 07/10/14

#11
TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff DOUGLAS STEEL SUPPLY COMPANY’s motion to compel third party production is GRANTED IN PART. C.C.P. § 1987.1.

Third party SILVERRACK is ORDERED to serve responsive documents, in accordance with this order, no later than July 22, 2014.

Plaintiff Douglas Steel brought this breach of contract action to recover on unpaid invoices for product delivered to defendant Rapid Rack. It appears Rapid Rack is no longer in operation. It has not answered the complaint and court records show that plaintiff filed a Request for Default on June 27, 2014. It does not appear that Rapid Rock can provide any discovery on the issue raised.

On April 7, 2014, plaintiff served a subpoena duces tecum on third party Silverrack, LLC seeking documents related to its operation and its relationship with defendant. Motion, Exh. 2. Plaintiff contends that defendant may have transferred its assets to Silverrack to avoid the debt and seeks to determine whether Silverrack should be named as a defendant under a successor liability theory. Plaintiff has provided a factual basis for its belief that Silverrack is operating as a continuation of defendant. See decl. of Sharon Baker, Jonathan Hecht.

Silverrack objected to the subpoena on numerous grounds, after which plaintiff attempted to meet and confer. Motion, Exh. 4. Silverrack argues that the discovery sought is not relevant to any pled claim or defense and constitutes an improper fishing expedition. See C.C.P. § 2017.010; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355. As noted by plaintiff, the discovery might reasonably assist it in evaluating its case, and thus meets the threshold relevancy requirement. See Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539. Plaintiff is seeking information to assist it in making a determination as to whether name Silverrack as a defendant. The broad scope of discover is equally applicable to discovery of information from a nonparty as it is to a party. Dodd v. Cruz (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 933.

As to the subpoena itself, Silverrack objects to some of the individual requests as improper or overly burdensome. The Court has reviewed the parties’ separate statements and finds that request numbers 5 and 6 are vague and overbroad. They seek “all documents” related to Silverrack’s “business operations” from 2012 to present and prior to 2012, respectively. Production would presumably include the entirety of Silverrack’s records. The request to compel production is denied as to those requests.

Responses to the requests that seek documents “identifying or otherwise describing” Silverrack’s and Rapid Rack’s officers, directors, employees and shareholders can be limited to the names and job titles of those individuals (without any other “description”). See Request numbers 10 through 15.

With those limitations, the Court finds the discovery is sufficiently tailored to the issue for which production is sought. It does not appear that responses would implicate any trade secret or privilege. Silverrack’s objections are overruled.

Silverrack’s relevancy objections to the declarations of Sharon Baker and Jonathan Hecht are OVERRULED.