Sahadiv. Vista Monterey Holdings, LLC, et al.		CASE NO. 113CV254094
DATE: 5 September 2014	TIME: 9:00	LINE NUMBER: 16

This matter will be heard by the Honorable Judge Socrates Peter Manoukian in Department 19 in the Old Courthouse, 2nd Floor, 161 North First Street, San Jose. Any party opposing the tentative ruling must call Department 19 at 408.808.6856 and the opposing party no later than 4:00 PM Thursday 4 September 2014.  Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel.

On 5 September  2014, the motion of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Fred N. Sahadi, trustee of the Fred N. Sahadi Living Trust (“Sahadi”), for a protective order was argued and submitted.  Defendant and cross-complainant Vista Monterey Holdings, LLC (“Vista”) filed a formal opposition to Sahadi’s motion.

I.       Statement of Facts

Sahadi is the owner of a 12.96 acre property located in Los Gatos (the “Property”).  Vista purchased an adjacent property in June 2013.  According to the allegations of his first amended complaint (the “FAC”), Sahadi has used two points of ingress and egress from the Property that traverse Vista’s property to reach Santella Drive for over 40 years.  However, Vista, which may not have been aware of Sahadi’s use of the ingress and egress at the time it purchased the adjacent property, gave Sahadi notice that he was not permitted to continue using them, and the parties continue to dispute Sahadi’s right to do so.

On 3 October 2013, Sahadi filed this action for declaratory relief against Vista, and on 3 December 2013, Vista cross-complained, asserting claims for injunctive relief, quiet title, declaratory relief, and constructive trust.

II.      Discovery Dispute

On 27 May 2014, Vista served subpoenas for the production of business records upon third parties Sereno Properties dba Sereno Group (“Sereno”) and Marie McGinnis “Ducky” Grabill (“Grabill”), demanding the production of several categories of documents related to the Property.  Vista states that Grabill is an agent for Sereno, and while neither party explains what relationship Sereno has to the Property, it may be inferred from their argument that Sereno is a real estate firm that has worked with Sahadi in connection with the Property.

On 3 July 2013, counsel for Sahadi emailed counsel for Vista, stating that a number of documents encompassed by the subpoenas reflect information that is confidential, privileged, and irrelevant to this action.  Counsel stated that he believed Vista sought to obtain documents pertaining to Sahadi’s contemplated sale of the Property, and offered to produce offer and acceptance documents relating to the two purchase offers Sahadi had entertained.  The same day, Vista’s attorney responded, stating that Sahadi’s proposal was too restrictive, but offering to agree that the production would exclude any private financial information.

Without responding to Vista’s attorney’s email, Sahadi filed the present motion for a protective order on 8 July 2014.  Sahadi’s motion was initially noticed to be heard on 8 August 2014.  Vista filed papers in opposition to Sahadi’s motion on 28 July 2014.  The hearing on the motion was continued to 5 September 2014 pursuant to the Court’s 4 August 2014 order granting Sahadi’s ex parte application for a continuance.

In his reply brief, filed 28 August 2014, Sahadi indicates that the parties have now met and conferred twice regarding the production of the disputed documents.  In addition, Sahadi’s counsel delivered documents responsive to the subpoenas to Vista’s attorney on 26 August 2014.  Sahadi states that two “minor redactions” were made to the documents produced and one email was withheld, but provides no details concerning the content of the redacted and withheld information.  Sahadi also states that both parties have agreed to have a mediator assist in resolving their dispute.

III.     Discussion

Sahadi seeks a protective order providing that Sereno and Grabill shall not produce “confidential and irrelevant documents including, but not limited to, private communications marked ‘confidential’ and documents relating to [Sahadi’s] personal finances, business plans, and trust” in response to the subpoenas.[1]  Vista opposes Sahadi’s motion, stating that it will agree to the redaction of Sahadi’s personal financial information or, alternatively, the entry of a protective order providing that any documents produced be used for purposes of this litigation only, but arguing that the exclusions sought by Sahadi are vague and overly broad.
A.               Legal Standard

The court may, “upon motion reasonably made by a [party] … make an order quashing [a] subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders.”  (Code Civ. Proc. (“CCP”), § 1987.1, subds. (a) and (b)(1).)  In addition, the court may make “any other order as may be appropriate to protect the [moving party] from unreasonable or oppressive demands,” including unreasonable violations of his or her right to privacy.  (Id.)

The court may also make any order that justice requires to protect the party from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense, including a protective order providing that certain writings or tangible things designated for production not be produced.  (CCP, § 2025.420, subds. (b) and (b)(11).)

The party moving for a protective order bears the burden of demonstrating good cause for the order by explaining and justifying its objections to the discovery sought. (See Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (Stendell) (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255, citing Goodman v. Citizens Life & Cas. Ins. Co. (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 807, 819.)

B.  Analysis

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the present motion may have been partially mooted by Sahadi’s 26 August document production.  Nevertheless, Sahadi has not withdrawn his motion and indicates that he has withheld and redacted unspecified information from the documents that were provided to him by the subpoena recipients.

Furthermore, it is not clear that all documents responsive to the subpoenas were reviewed by Sahadi in the first place.  Finally, while Sahadi states that the parties have agreed to have a mediator assist in resolving their dispute, there is no indication that arrangements for a mediation have been made or that the parties wish the Court to forgo hearing Sahadi’s motion pending efforts to mediate.  Consequently, the Court will address Sahadi’s motion.

The subpoenas at issue seek the following categories of documents: (1)-(3) all listing agreements and purchase offers for the Property, as well as any communications with Sahadi regarding the listing of the Property and any purchase offers for it; (4) all preliminary reports or preliminary title reports regarding the Property; (5) all documents regarding any access easements or claimed access easements from the Property; (6) all documents relating to any subdivision of the Property; and (7) any file maintained by Sereno and/or Grabill regarding the Property.

Sahadi contends that these requests are overly broad.  In support of his motion, he submits a declaration stating that Sereno and Grabill “are in possession of documents containing confidential, privileged, and otherwise private information which are in no way relevant to” this matter, including “detailed information about [Sahadi’s] trust, finances, and the Property in general” and “confidential communication [sic] between [Grabill] and [Sahadi].”  (Decl. of Fred N. Sahadi ISO Mot. for Protective Order, ¶¶ 9-11.)

Sahadi contends that the majority of the documents encompassed by the subpoenas are irrelevant to the alleged easement at issue in this action and pertain instead to Sahadi’s plans to sell or develop the Property, and posits that Vista seeks to use the information reflected therein to investigate him as a potential business competitor.  However, discovery is allowed for any matters that are not privileged, relevant to the action, and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence (CCP, § 2017.010), and information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement thereof (see Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546).  As urged by Vista, information in a broker’s file pertaining to the Property is likely to reflect the presence or absence of a claimed easement.  Furthermore, Vista correctly notes that Sahadi’s planned uses of the Property and the impact of the easement thereon are directly relevant to its claim for injunctive relief, because the Court must consider the relative harms and benefits to the parties to determine whether equitable relief is appropriate.  (See Grail Semiconductor, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 786, 800 [court must find that equitable relief is appropriate to issue an injunction]; Rotary Club of Duarte v. Bd. of Dirs. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 1035, 1060 [court considered the relative harms and benefits to the parties in making this determination].)  Consequently, Sahadi’s argument that the subpoenas seek irrelevant documents lacks merit.

As Vista acknowledges, however, Sahadi has a right to privacy in his personal financial affairs.  (See Cobb v. Super. Ct. (Tleel) (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550.)  Vista does not contend that any personal financial information encompassed by the subpoenas that does not pertain to the Property itself is directly relevant to this lawsuit.  Accordingly, the entry of a protective order providing that any of Sahadi’s personal financial information and/or information related to his trust shall be redacted or withheld from production is warranted.  (See Britt v. Super. Ct. (San Diego Unified Port District) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859 [where a serious invasion of the right to privacy is shown, the proponent of discovery must demonstrate that the information sought is “directly relevant” to a claim or defense, and “essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit”]; (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (Barkett) (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657-658 [in addressing a privacy objection, the court must carefully balance the right of privacy, on the one hand, and the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts, on the other, considering its ability to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure or disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances].)

However, as discussed above, financial information related to the Property is directly relevant to this action and essential to its fair resolution.  Therefore, any such information shall be produced in response to the Subpoenas, subject to the restriction that it and the other information produced shall only be used for purposes of this litigation.

Finally, Sahadi’s vague assertions that additional information and communications encompassed by the subpoenas are “privileged,” “private,” or merely “confidential” are inadequate to support the entry of a protective order respecting these items.

In accordance with the above, Sahadi’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV.     Conclusion and Order

The motion for a protective order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.  After redacting or excluding any of Sahadi’s personal financial information and/or information related to his trust, the subpoena recipients shall produce all documents responsive to the subpoenas, including documents reflecting financial information related to the Property, to counsel for Vista within 20 calendar days of the filing of this Order.  To the extent that any documents are withheld from production, the subpoena recipients shall provide a log identifying the documents withheld and providing the basis for their withholding.  Vista shall use the information produced in response to the subpoenas for purposes of this litigation only.

________________­­­____________ DATED:

_________________________­­­________________________ HON. SOCRATES PETER MANOUKIAN Judge of the Superior Court County of Santa Clara

 

[1] While the proposed order submitted by Sahadi indicates that an “Exhibit A” identifying specific documents that reflect such information is attached, no such exhibit has been provided to the Court.