On December 03, 2019 a
Party Discovery
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hudson 11601 Wilshire L.L.C.,
Stoll Nussbaum & Polakov Apc,
and
Coleman Victor,
Everidge Deanna,
Hansel Gary,
Hudson 11601 Wilshire L.L.C.,
Hudson Pacific Properties Inc.,
Lasky Jeffrey,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California
SEP -8 2020
County of Los Angeles Sherri R. Gi et cutivy Officer/Clerk
By. = “a Deputy
Latrina Woods
Department 61
STOLL, NUSSBAUM & POLAKOV APC, Case No.: 18STCV43498
Plaintiff Hearing Date: September 8, 2020
Vv. -RRNEAERWE] RULING RE:
HUDSON 11601 WILSHIRE, LLC, et al.,
IDDEFENDANT HUDSON 11601 WILSHIRE
Defendants.
LC’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO
ENANT IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS,
INC.
Defendant Hudson 11601 Wilshire LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Tenant Improvement
Specialists, Inc. is DENIED.
I MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc: § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A party may bring a motion
under this section. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).)
Hudson moves to quash a subpoena to its construction vendor Tenant Improvement Specialists
(TIS) which asks for documents and communications related to the construction projects
undertaken on Hudson’s property from 2015 onward. (Motion Exh. A.) Hudson argues that much
of this case was resolved by a February 2019 Letter Agreement and as such the subpoena as to
matters resolved by the letter is overbroad. (Motion at p. 3.)
Hudson offers the court no reason to quash or limit the subpoena. The letter agreement dated
February 25, 2019, offers SNP an abatement in rent owing to their concerns over ongoing
improvements; it does not purport to effect a release of claims or a limitation on the scope of this
litigation, which was filed one year later. (Motion Exh. D.) Hudson also argues that various lease
4
Document Filed Date
September 08, 2020
Case Filing Date
December 03, 2019
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Other (Conditional Settlement) 06/09/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Superior Court of California SEP -8 2020 County of Los Angeles Sherri R. Gi et cutivy Officer/Clerk By. = “a Deputy Latrina Woods Department 61 STOLL, NUSSBAUM & POLAKOV APC, Case No.: 18STCV43498 Plaintiff Hearing Date: September 8, 2020 Vv. -RRNEAERWE] RULING RE: HUDSON 11601 WILSHIRE, LLC, et al., IDDEFENDANT HUDSON 11601 WILSHIRE Defendants. LC’S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO ENANT IMPROVEMENT SPECIALISTS, INC. Defendant Hudson 11601 Wilshire LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoena to Tenant Improvement Specialists, Inc. is DENIED. I MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA “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.” (Code Civ. Proc: § 1987.1, subd. (a).) A party may bring a motion under this section. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1, subd. (b)(1).) Hudson moves to quash a subpoena to its construction vendor Tenant Improvement Specialists (TIS) which asks for documents and communications related to the construction projects undertaken on Hudson’s property from 2015 onward. (Motion Exh. A.) Hudson argues that much of this case was resolved by a February 2019 Letter Agreement and as such the subpoena as to matters resolved by the letter is overbroad. (Motion at p. 3.) Hudson offers the court no reason to quash or limit the subpoena. The letter agreement dated February 25, 2019, offers SNP an abatement in rent owing to their concerns over ongoing improvements; it does not purport to effect a release of claims or a limitation on the scope of this litigation, which was filed one year later. (Motion Exh. D.) Hudson also argues that various lease 4