Cal.5th 531, 552. The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. Id. Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. Id. The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. Id. at 555. If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves. Id. at 552. The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. Id. Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” or “compelling need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. Id. at 556.

While Plaintiff has demonstrated a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in purchase and sale documents including escrow instructions and purchase agreements, the invasion of privacy is not serious. Any financial information disclosed therein was disclosed to the seller (through escrow) to demonstrate financial condition, and information regarding how much was paid for the property may usually be obtained from public records. In fact, Requests Nos. 2 – 5 expressly exclude documents containing any financial information of A.C.A. LLC or any of its members. Additionally, Defendants have identified a legitimate and important countervailing interest in discovering the circumstances surrounding the sale transaction with Rita Seifer and the damages relative to Plaintiff’s purchase price. Plaintiff has not identified feasible alternatives to serve this same interests or protective measures to diminish the loss of privacy.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the scope of escrow.

¿ Request No. 6: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Request No. 6, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request. See discussion above re: Request No. 1 – 5.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Request No. 6.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff has not even demonstrated that it has a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in underwriting conditions concerning escrow, nor a serious invasion of privacy from such disclosure. In fact, Request No. 6 expressly excludes documents containing any financial information of A.C.A. LLC or any of its members. As such, the Court need not engage in a balancing of countervailing interests. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 555.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the scope of escrow.

¿ Requests Nos. 7 – 9: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Requests Nos. 7 – 9, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request. See discussion above re: Requests Nos. 1 – 5.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 7 – 9.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff has not even demonstrated that it has a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in commissions and other payments paid out of escrow, documents reflecting the seller’s ownership of the properties, or the distribution of all monies deposited into escrow, nor a serious invasion of privacy from such disclosure. As such, the Court need not engage in a balancing of countervailing interests. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 555.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the scope of escrow.

¿ Request No. 10: MOOT.

Defendants and Third Party Wells Fargo Bank N.A. agree that this request shall be withdrawn completely.

¿ Request No. 11: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Request No. 11, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request. See discussion above re: Requests Nos. 1 – 5.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Request No. 11.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

While Plaintiff has demonstrated a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in the rent rolls of and/or income generated from the properties while Plaintiff owned the property, no such privacy interests are demonstrated as to written representations of the borrower or seller. Moreover, the invasion of privacy is not serious. Additionally, Defendants have identified a legitimate and important countervailing interest in discovering whether there was an increase or decrease in rental income after the sale was completed for purposes of damages. Plaintiff has not identified feasible alternatives to serve this same interests or protective measures to diminish the loss of privacy.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the scope of escrow.

¿ Request No. 12: DENIED.

As to Request No. 12, the motion to quash is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff has not even demonstrated that it has a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in appraisals of the properties, nor a serious invasion of privacy from such disclosure. As such, the Court need not engage in a balancing of countervailing interests. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 555.

Plaintiff’s Motion To Quash First Foundation Bank Deposition Subpoena

Re: Service of Subpoena

Plaintiff questions whether this subpoena was validly served upon First Foundation Bank.

In the opposition, Defendants have submitted satisfactory evidence that the subpoena was personally served upon Equity Title Company on October 30, 2017. See Dennis P. Riley Decl., ¶ 156 and Exh. 8 thereto. As such, this ground for quashing the subpoena is not persuasive.

Re: Service Upon All Consumers

Plaintiff claims that all consumers whose personal records are requested were not served, because Damian Akhavi, Jamie Akhavi and Sean Akhavi were not served. CCP § 1985.3(k). These persons are managing members of A.C.A., LLC. See Declaration of Damian Akhavi, ¶ 8.

However, Defendants served A.C.A, LLC with notice of the subpoena upon First Foundation Bank. Riley Decl., Exh. 4. This is sufficient to put the managing members on notice that their records are being sought to the extent they were involved in the subject transaction. There is no statutory requirement that a subpoenaing party ascertain the identities of every individual who has an ownership or managing interest in an entity where the entity’s records are being sough. As such, this ground for quashing the subpoena is not persuasive.

Re: Reconsideration and 20-Day Deadline

Plaintiff’s argument that the Court already denied Defendants’ motion to enforce this subpoena on January 31, 2018 on the ground that it was untimely and lacks jurisdiction to reconsider that order is not persuasive. The Court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to compel compliance with this deposition subpoena pertained to objections asserted by non-party Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, as successor trustee of the Rita Lupino Living Trust. The instant motion pertains to whether Plaintiff’s objections are valid.

Re: “Including But Not Limited To”

For purposes of the subpoena, the category is to be construed to require the specifically enumerated requests. The “but not limited to” language may be disregarded as superfluous boilerplate.

Re: Good Cause

Defendant need not demonstrate good cause on a motion to quash a deposition subpoena. A showing of good cause is not required to be made in connection with service of a deposition subpoena.

(c) A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for copying need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the production of the business records designated in it. It shall be directed to the custodian of those records or another person qualified to certify the records. . . .

CCP § 2020.410(c).

Thus, since service of the deposition subpoena on Pimentel was effective despite the absence of a supporting affidavit or declaration, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing reasonable monetary sanctions for his failure to comply with the subpoena.

Terry v. SLICO (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 352, 359.

Re: Stipulation Between Defendants and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. Modifying The Subpoena

Plaintiff’s argument that the purported stipulation between Defendants and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. excluding documents pertaining to Rita Lupino Seifer and/or The Rita Lupino Seifer Living Trust dated 4/4/2002 (aside from documents pertaining to 540 Glenrock Avenue and 543 Landfair Avenue) renders the subpoena unenforceable is not persuasive. To hold otherwise would undermine the policy behind meet and confer attempts to informally resolve discovery disputes. The Court accepts the stipulated limitation.

¿ Requests Nos. 1 – 7: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Requests Nos. 1 – 7, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request.

Tax returns are privileged from disclosure except in certain specified instances. Weingarten v. Superior Court (2002)102 Cal. App. 4th 268, 274. This privilege applies to both state and federal tax returns. Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 719.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 1 – 7.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

In ruling upon a privacy objection in the contact of discovery, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a legally protected privacy interest. Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 552. The party asserting a privacy right must also establish an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the given circumstances. Id. Further, the party asserting a privacy right must establish a threatened intrusion that is serious. Id. The Court need not proceed to the fourth step of balancing competing interests if all three of the above are not satisfied. Id. at 555. If the Court reaches the fourth step, the Court must balance these competing considerations: The party seeking information may raise whatever legitimate and important countervailing interests disclosure serves. Id. at 552. The party seeking protection may identify feasible alternatives that serve the same interests or protective measures that would diminish the loss of privacy. Id. Courts may not require the party seeking discovery to demonstrate a “compelling state interest” or “compelling need” simply because discovery of any facially private information is sought. Id. at 556.

While Plaintiff has demonstrated a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in purchase and sale documents including escrow instructions and purchase agreements, the invasion of privacy is not serious. In fact, Requests Nos. 1 – 7 expressly exclude documents containing any financial information of A.C.A. LLC or any of its members. Additionally, Defendants have identified a legitimate and important countervailing interest in discovering the circumstances surrounding the specific sale transaction with Rita Seifer. Plaintiff has not identified feasible alternatives to serve this same interests or protective measures to diminish the loss of privacy. Notably, the requests are limited to a specific purchase/sale—they are not open-ended requests. If there are no responsive documents because, as Plaintiff argues, the loan file pertains to a loan made well after the sale of the building, then so be it.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the fact that the request is limited to the subject purchase/sale of the real property.

¿ Request Nos. 8: DENIED.

As to Request No. 8, the motion to quash is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff has not even demonstrated that it has a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in title documents, title reports, title insurance policies, and statements of information, nor a serious invasion of privacy from such disclosure. As such, the Court need not engage in a balancing of countervailing interests. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 555.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the fact that the request is limited to the subject purchase/sale of the real property.

¿ Request No. 9: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Request No. 9, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request. See discussion above re: Requests Nos. 1 – 7.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Requests Nos. 1 – 7.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

While Plaintiff has demonstrated a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in purchase and sale documents including settlement statements and closing statements, the invasion of privacy is not serious. Additionally, Defendants have identified a legitimate and important countervailing interest in discovering the circumstances surrounding the specific sale transaction. Plaintiff has not identified feasible alternatives to serve this same interests or protective measures to diminish the loss of privacy. Notably, the requests are limited to a specific purchase/sale—they are not open-ended requests. If there are no responsive documents because, as Plaintiff argues, the loan file pertains to a loan made well after the sale of the building, then so be it.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the fact that the request is limited to the subject purchase/sale of the real property.

¿ Request No. 10: MOOT.

Defendants and Third Party Wells Fargo Bank N.A. agree that this request shall be withdrawn completely.

¿ Request No. 11: GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

As to Request No. 11, the motion to quash is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that tax return documents are responsive to the request. See discussion above re: Requests Nos. 1 – 7.

Plaintiff’s motion to quash is otherwise DENIED IN PART as to Request No. 11.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

While Plaintiff has demonstrated a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in the rent rolls of and/or income generated from the properties while Plaintiff owned the property, no such privacy interests are demonstrated as to written representations of the borrower or seller. Moreover, the invasion of privacy is not serious. Additionally, Defendants have identified a legitimate and important countervailing interest in discovering whether there was an increase or decrease in rental income after the sale was completed for purposes of damages. Plaintiff has not identified feasible alternatives to serve this same interests or protective measures to diminish the loss of privacy.

Plaintiff’s objections on the ground of vagueness and ambiguity and inability to anticipate what responsive documents will be produced are OVERRULED. The nature of the documents to be produced are necessarily limited by the scope of escrow.

¿ Request No. 12: DENIED.

The motion to quash is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s privacy objection is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff has not even demonstrated that it has a legally protected privacy interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in appraisals of the properties, nor a serious invasion of privacy from such disclosure. As such, the Court need not engage in a balancing of countervailing interests. Williams, supra, 3 Cal.5th at 555.

Sanctions

Because Plaintiff’s objections were without merit, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Defendant is DENIED.

In the consolidated opposition to the motions to quash, Defendant did not request sanctions against Plaintiff. As such, no sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff.

Defendant to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2018 ___________________________________

Randolph M. Hammock

Judge of the Superior Court