16-CIV-02987 MIKE ROSEN, ET AL. VS. XIAO YAN CHEN, ET AL.

MIKE ROSEN XIAO YAN CHEN
LAWRENCE D. MILLER BRADLEY KASS

MOTION TO COMPEL TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiffs Mike Rosen, Assignee of Spondulix Company, Inc., and Barry Milgrom, Trustee of Bankruptcy Estate of James Jin Qing Li, (“Plaintiffs”) Directing Compliance with Subpoena Duces Tecum, is ruled on as follows:

(1) The motion as to the subpoena to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ need for this discovery outweighs James Jin Qing Li’s (“Li”) privacy objection. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is ordered to provide the records requested in Plaintiffs’ subpoena that was issued on February 14, 2018. (See Plaintiffs’ Revised Exh. 1.) (2) The motion as to the subpoenas to Wells Fargo and Bank of America is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

The subpoena to Wells Fargo seeks all bank records from December 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012, “for all accounts in the names of the individuals and entities listed below, including but not limited to” one specific bank account number (Account No. 87433165) and nineteen individuals and/or entities.

The subpoena to Bank of America seeks all bank records from December 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012 “for all accounts in the names of the individuals and entities listed” identifying 12 bank account numbers and the same 19 individuals and/or entities.

Plaintiffs’ subpoena seeks the bank records of Defendant Xiao Yan Chen (“Chen”), and her exhusband James Li (“Li”), who is alleged to have fraudulently transferred personal and real property to Chen to avoid judgment creditors. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek the bank records of various LLCs and corporations that are alleged to have a connection to Chen and/or Li. A person has an inalienable right of privacy provided by California Constitution, Art. 1§ 1. (Britt v. Sup. Ct. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855, 856.) A right of privacy exists as to a party’s confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant to the litigation. (Cobb. v. Sup. Ct. (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550.) The party seeking discovery must show a particularized need for the confidential information sought. The court must balance the privacy rights against the needs for discovery. (Britt, supra at 859-862.) Although a corporation does not have a constitutional right of privacy, corporations still have a right of privacy which is resolved by a balancing test. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 756.) Further, a nonparty whose privacy is involved must be given notice of the discovery request and an opportunity to object to the invasion of his or her privacy prior to disclosure. (Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 658.)

After reviewing the supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs have established that their need for the following bank records outweighs any privacy rights: (1) James Li; (2) Defendant Chen, (3) King Wah, Inc.; (4) King Wah Restaurant, Inc.; (5) J. Li & Associates; (6) J. Li & Associates, Inc.; (7) Pacific View LLC; (8) 1998 R&J Investments, LLC; (9) 277 San Francisco, LLC; (10) One San Bruno LLC; and (11) Portola Valley LLC. Plaintiffs have demonstrated that such records are directly relevant to their allegations that Li fraudulently conveyed property to Chen. The motion to compel compliance with the subpoena for the bank records of these individuals and entities is therefore GRANTED. Wells Fargo Bank and Bank of America, N.A. are ordered to provide the records requested in Plaintiffs’ subpoena for these individuals and entities. (See Plaintiffs’ Revised Exhs. 2, 3.)

The motion to compel as to the remaining bank records for Qiong Hua Restaurant, Inc., La Mian Group, Inc., 2933 San Juan, LLC, High Camp, LLC, Mayfair International, Inc., Willow Creek Group, Inc., Texas Development, Inc. and Taxas Development, Inc., is DENIED. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the relevance of these bank records outweighs the privacy rights. Further, High Camp, LLC is admitted to be the wrong entity name. Plaintiffs also state they are no longer seeking the bank records of Taxas Development, Inc. This denial is WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs issuing new subpoenas for these records if they discover additional information that leads them to believe that such bank records are directly relevant to this action.

The motion to compel bank records for an account ending in *3165 from Wells Fargo is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs have not identified whose bank account this is, nor have they explained the relevance of this specific bank account.

The motion to compel bank records for the 12 specific bank account identified in the Bank of America subpoena are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except for the accounts ending in *6189 and *7980 which Plaintiffs have established are Li’s bank accounts which are GRANTED. As to the remaining ten bank account numbers, Plaintiffs have not identified to whom these bank accounts belong and how they are relevant to this action.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court, pursuant to Rule 3.1308(a)(1), adopted by Local Rule 3.10, effective immediately, and no formal order pursuant to Rule 3.1312 or any other notice is required as the tentative ruling affords sufficient notice to the parties.