PAUL M. CAREY JR. VS. VINCENT DABBAY ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24620564 - December 17, 2025 Hearing date: December 17, 2025 Case number: CGC24620564 Case title: PAUL M. CAREY JR. VS. VINCENT DABBAY ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24620564 | Case Title: | | PAUL M. CAREY JR. VS. VINCENT DABBAY ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-17 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Wednesday, December 17, 2025, Line 6, JON MOOREHEAD'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS.

Third-Party Witness Jon-Paul Moorehead's Motion To Quash Plaintiff Paul M. Carey Jr.'s Subpoena is GRANTED. Moorehead's request for judicial notice on reply in support of the motion to quash is denied. The court will not consider new evidence submitted on reply.

Moorehead moves under Code of Civil procedure section 1987.1. Section 1987.1(a) provides: "If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person."

The subpoena is quashed because Plaintiff failed to personally serve it. Moorehead's actual notice is irrelevant. Additionally, the subpoena is unduly oppressive and quashed on those grounds. The record shows Moorehead's firm has already sent the requested files and documents via a mailed USB, a link with the electronic copies of Plaintiff's files, and all of the physical original hard copies of Plaintiff files via mail. (Moorehead Decl. 5-6; Kim Decl. 2.) electronic documents may be produced in the manner in which they are maintained, Moorehead is not obligated to provide the entirety of the firm's files as printed copies.

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.

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.