Stellantis Financial Services, Inc. v. Nurkashev

110 Clay vs. Delgadillo, 23-01359983 Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Jerome Anthony Clay, Jr. (“Clay”), and Cross-Defendant, The Law Office of Jerome A. Clay, A.P.C. (“Clay Law Office”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) move for an order quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued by Defendants/Cross- Complainants, Frank Delgadillo, Jr.; Dessau, Inc.; and M86CEM, LLC (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) to Wells Fargo National Association on January 8, 2026 (the “Deposition Subpoena”).

Cross-Defendants bring the subject motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1

Cross-Defendants contend that the Deposition Subpoena consists of 27 document requests which seek documents relating to several Wells Fargo accounts tied to Clay’s personal CLAY J PREFERRED CHECKING xxxxxx2531, Law Office operating LAW OFFICE OF JEROME A CLAY A DDA xxxxxx9821, and IOLTA xxxxxx5122 accounts, as well as internal bank records reflecting transactions and account activity. Cross-Defendants contend these requests violate Cross-Defendants’ constitutional right to privacy under Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution, including confidential personal and law practice financial information and the attorney client privilege and work product doctrine.

Cross-Defendants additionally assert that the Deposition Subpoena is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Cross-Defendants thus contend that the Court should exercise its discretion under section 1987.1 to quash the Subpoena in its entirety, or alternatively, enter a protective order to ensure any compelled discovery is narrowly tailored, proportionate, and subject to confidentiality safeguards.

Defendants/Cross-Complainants, M86CHEM, LLC; Dessau, Inc., and Frank Delgadillo (“Delgadillo Jr.”) (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) contend that the motion should be denied as the Deposition Subpoena is narrowly tailored, directly relevant to the claims and defenses, and supported by bank records produced in prior discovery. Cross- Complainants contend that the information sought in the Deposition Subpoena is specific to the instant wire transfer of $2,640,000 from Meiwa Engineering in Japan to the IOLTA of Clay Law Office as fiduciary for M86CHEM, LLC, the legal grantor, secondary beneficiary, and only “client” of the clienttrust fund, and that the additional requests seek records showing whether those funds were transferred to authorized recipients or to persons and accounts outside the permitted disbursement instructions.

Cross-Complainants contend that the document requests do not violate Cross-Defendants right to privacy as the records sought are directly relevant to Cross-Complainants’ claims of fraud, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duty that goes to the very heart of the asserted