17-CIV-04710 REALTY ALLIANCE, INC. vs. DE RITZ, LLC, et al.

REALTY ALLIANCE, INC. JOSEPH W. CARCIONE, JR.

DE RITZ, LLC KATHARINE ESSICK

Motion for protective order

GRANTED. Defendants De Ritz, LLC and Steve L. Porter’s Motion For Protective Order is Granted as set forth below:

If any party contests this Tentative Ruling, Counsel shall personally appear. No Telephonic Appearances. No “Covering” Counsel. Also, if so contested Counsel, will be expected to Meet & Confer at the Hearing in order to resolve this Discovery dispute.

Plaintiff Realty Alliance, Inc. has brought this action to collect unpaid commissions for placing several tenants on long-term commercial leases in Defendants’ office building in San Mateo. The leasing for which unpaid commissions are sought spans several years going back to October 2013.

· Defendants DE RITZ, LLC and STEVE L. PORTER bring a motion for protective order with respect to a deposition subpoena and notice of deposition that were served on De Ritz’s accountant, third party Natalie Quan. Defendants seek an order that: (1) Ms. Quan need not produce documents in response to Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 1-8; (2) Plaintiff’s Request Nos. 9-10 are limited to the extent they relate to documents sought in Request Nos. 1-8; and (3) the scope of deposition questioning shall not include discussion of the documents sought in Request Nos. 1-8.

Defendants DE RITZ, LLC and STEVE L. PORTER’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED in its entirety pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.420(b). Defendants have met their burden of demonstrating that the document requests contained in the deposition notice and subpoena issued to Ms. Natalie Quan do not appear to be relevant to the claims and cross-claims in this action. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

Even if the requests were relevant, however, countervailing considerations of privacy must be balanced against the need for discovery. Harris v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 661, 665. The California Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. Cal. Const. Art I, § 1. Financial records fall within the zone of privacy. Id. at 665. In the face of Defendants’ privacy objections, Plaintiff has not shown a compelling need for the discovery that overrides Defendants’ right to privacy; accordingly, the motion is granted.