| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday January 07, 2026, Line 8. Defendants' motion to quash subpoenas is DENIED.
Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3(g) provides that a party can bring a motion to quash per Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 "prior to the date for production." Here, the parties agreed that the production date was 11/11/25 and the date to bring a motion was 11/10/25. (Louie Decl., Ex. C.) Defendant filed this untimely motion on 11/12/25 and miscites Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 regarding a motion deadline.
In any event, there is good cause for the discovery. The subpoenas appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010.) The subpoenas do not involve "personal autonomy," so the court employs a more nuanced framework that balances the strength of the privacy interest itself, the seriousness of the invasion, and the availability of alternatives and protective measures. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 556-557; see also SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741, 754-755.)
Here, plaintiff seeks evidence showing that defendants were involved in a fraudulent fix and flip scheme and facts regarding other transactions are probative. (See Morris Stulsaft Foundation v. Superior Court (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 409, 422-423 [evidence of other transactions is admissible to show motive, intent, knowledge, plan, and absence of mistake].) Defendants fail to show a serious invasion (escrow files) and "[t]he constitutional right of privacy does not provide absolute protection but may yield in the furtherance of compelling state interests." (SCC Acquisitions, Inc., 243 Cal.App.4th at 754.)
The court denies sanctions as both sides acted with substantial justification.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
Counsel for the prevailing party is required to prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and must email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the hearing even if the tentative ruling is not contested.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email address. =(302/JMQ) | |