Case Name: Hall Palmer v. Loren Toews, et al.
Case No.: 16CV299284

Before the court are three separate motions: Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Line 6); Defendants’ motion to modify deposition subpoena for production of business records (Line 7); and Defendants’ motion to compel Bruce W.Palmer to appear for deposition.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the proposed first amended complaint is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint (FAC) shall be filed and served within 10 days.

Defendants’ motion to modify the deposition subpoena to current non-party First Republic Bank, who will be added as a defendant in plaintiff’s FAC is DENIED. Plaintiff objects there was no meet and confer between counsel, and although the court would prefer to see such an effort, which is consistent with the intent of the Santa Clara County Bar Association Code of Professionalism, none is technically required by statute for such a motion. However, a Separate Statement is required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345. No separate statement has been presented, and this alone is grounds for denial of the motion.
However, the Court does recognize that defendants have raised valid privacy concerns, and thus do present presumptively valid substantive objections, despite the motion’s procedural deficiencies. Thus, the court GRANTS the motion only to order that the responsive subpoenaed documents may only be produced after redaction of defendants’ personal financial information and private identifying information such as social security numbers. This redaction shall be consistent with the proposal set forth in plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition, at page 5. Counsel are ordered to meet and confer to agree on the procedure for effecting this redaction and production of responsive documents.

Defendants’ motion to compel the deposition of Bruce W. Palmer is GRANTED. Plaintiff has not filed a motion for protective order, has not filed timely, valid objections in proper form, and has not present good cause for failing to comply with proper notices of deposition. Nonetheless, as the court has now granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the FAC, the court finds good cause to order that the deposition of Mr. Palmer shall proceed within 30 days of the filing of an answer to the FAC by new defendant, First Republic Bank.

Defendants’ request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. Defendants have failed to adequately meet and confer prior to filing this motion, and have failed to file a meet and confer declaration required by Code of Civil Procedure §§2025.450(b)(2) and 2016.040. This procedural failure is sufficient grounds for the denial of the motion to compel. However, as plaintiff has failed to show good cause for not presenting Mr. Palmer for deposition, the court finds good cause to order the deposition to proceed, on the schedule set forth above, and to deny the monetary sanctions that otherwise may have been required by statute, had defendants proceeded with this motion in an entirely procedurally proper manner.