On June 26, 2023 a
Conference
was filed
involving a dispute between
Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management Partnership,
and
1-3, And John Does 1-3, Inclusive,
Bai, Lihui,
Does 1-3, Inclusive,
Xyz Corp.,
Zhu, Yihua,
for (42) Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec)
in the District Court of San Mateo County.
Preview
Case Number: 23-CIV-02886
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road 800 North Humboldt Street
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 San Mateo, CA 94401
www.sanmateo.courts.ca.gov
Minute Order
Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management Partnership (Limited 23-CIV-02886
Partnership) vs. Lihui Bai, et al
05/09/2024 2:00 PM
Informal Discovery Conference
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Mau, Michael L. Location: Courtroom H
Courtroom Clerk: Ruben Pena Courtroom Reporter:
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- IDC called at 2:00 p.m.
Attorney Brett Ramsaur appeared for Plaintiff.
Attorney Gabriel Colwell appeared for Defendant Yihua Zhu.
Defendant's IDC as a precursor to its Motion to Quash subpoena which is on calendar for 5/23/24.
I. Subpoena: The subpoena issued to Chase bank is for the accounts of a co-defendant, not the
appearing defendant Yihua Zhu. Defendant's objection that the initial due date of the subpoena was
procedurally defective, was cured by the extension of time granted for compliance. Defendant's
objection that the subpoena fails to comply with the notice to consumer requirements because it was
only served on the "last known address" is unpersuasive since the code (CCP 1895.3(b)(1)) expressly
allows service on the "last known address." Defendant's objection on relevance is also wholly
unpersuasive, as the test is whether it might lead to admissible evidence, not ultimate admissibility.
Beyond the above objections, Defendant does not appear to have standing. The accounts are those of a
co-defendant, they are not the accounts of this appearing defendant. Plaintiff cites to Matrixx v. Doe
(2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 872 for the proposition that the party seeking to resist discovery targeting third
parties must have standing to do so. Matrixx does stand for this proposition and is binding precedent.
However, even more persuasive is the case that Matrixx cites to.
Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400 explained an exception to the general rule that in seeking relief
litigants must assert their own legal rights rather than rely on the rights or interests of third parties. (Id.
at p. 410) The U.S. Supreme Court limited the exception to circumstances in which three criteria were
met: (1) the litigant suffers a distinct and palpable injury in fact, thus giving him or her a concrete
interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) the litigant has a close relationship to the third party such
that the two share a common interest; and (3) there is some hindrance to the third party's ability to
1
Case Number: 23-CIV-02886
protect his or her own interests. (Id. at p. 411).
In this case, Defendant is the son of the co-defendant Lihui Bai whose bank records are sought, possibly
satisfying the 2nd prong. However, Defendant's brief for the IDC and brief on the Motion to Quash, do
not appear to substantively argue either the 1st or 3rd prongs. Without all 3 prongs being met, the
general rule would apply that a litigant must assert his or her own legal rights.
II. Motion for a Protective Order: Defendant also seeks a Protective Order claiming that Plaintiff is
abusing the subpoena power. However, there does not appear to be any good cause for a Protective
Order. Plaintiff has issued a subpoena to a third-party entity called IATS, and to Chase bank, both
seeking records to assist Plaintiff in finding information so that it can serve the co-defendants. This is
hardly excessive. Furthermore, Plaintiff also confirmed it would withdraw these subpoenas if the co-
defendants were to accept service. In light of this, the purpose of the subpoenas does not appear
improper, and instead seek discoverable information.
The IDC is concluded as unresolved, and thus the scheduled Motion to Quash should proceed on the
merits.
Case Events
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
May 23, 2024 2:00 PM Motion to Quash
Greenberg, Susan
Courtroom 2B
July 29, 2024 9:00 AM Case Management Conference
Mau, Michael L.
Courtroom H
Pena, Ruben
2
Document Filed Date
May 09, 2024
Case Filing Date
June 26, 2023
Category
(42) Unlimited Other Complaint (Not Spec)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Case Number: 23-CIV-02886 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road 800 North Humboldt Street Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 San Mateo, CA 94401 www.sanmateo.courts.ca.gov Minute Order Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management Partnership (Limited 23-CIV-02886 Partnership) vs. Lihui Bai, et al 05/09/2024 2:00 PM Informal Discovery Conference Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Mau, Michael L. Location: Courtroom H Courtroom Clerk: Ruben Pena Courtroom Reporter: Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - IDC called at 2:00 p.m. Attorney Brett Ramsaur appeared for Plaintiff. Attorney Gabriel Colwell appeared for Defendant Yihua Zhu. Defendant's IDC as a precursor to its Motion to Quash subpoena which is on calendar for 5/23/24. I. Subpoena: The subpoena issued to Chase bank is for the accounts of a co-defendant, not the appearing defendant Yihua Zhu. Defendant's objection that the initial due date of the subpoena was procedurally defective, was cured by the extension of time granted for compliance. Defendant's objection that the subpoena fails to comply with the notice to consumer requirements because it was only served on the "last known address" is unpersuasive since the code (CCP 1895.3(b)(1)) expressly allows service on the "last known address." Defendant's objection on relevance is also wholly unpersuasive, as the test is whether it might lead to admissible evidence, not ultimate admissibility. Beyond the above objections, Defendant does not appear to have standing. The accounts are those of a co-defendant, they are not the accounts of this appearing defendant. Plaintiff cites to Matrixx v. Doe (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 872 for the proposition that the party seeking to resist discovery targeting third parties must have standing to do so. Matrixx does stand for this proposition and is binding precedent. However, even more persuasive is the case that Matrixx cites to. Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400 explained an exception to the general rule that in seeking relief litigants must assert their own legal rights rather than rely on the rights or interests of third parties. (Id. at p. 410) The U.S. Supreme Court limited the exception to circumstances in which three criteria were met: (1) the litigant suffers a distinct and palpable injury in fact, thus giving him or her a concrete interest in the outcome of the dispute; (2) the litigant has a close relationship to the third party such that the two share a common interest; and (3) there is some hindrance to the third party's ability to 1 Case Number: 23-CIV-02886 protect his or her own interests. (Id. at p. 411). In this case, Defendant is the son of the co-defendant Lihui Bai whose bank records are sought, possibly satisfying the 2nd prong. However, Defendant's brief for the IDC and brief on the Motion to Quash, do not appear to substantively argue either the 1st or 3rd prongs. Without all 3 prongs being met, the general rule would apply that a litigant must assert his or her own legal rights. II. Motion for a Protective Order: Defendant also seeks a Protective Order claiming that Plaintiff is abusing the subpoena power. However, there does not appear to be any good cause for a Protective Order. Plaintiff has issued a subpoena to a third-party entity called IATS, and to Chase bank, both seeking records to assist Plaintiff in finding information so that it can serve the co-defendants. This is hardly excessive. Furthermore, Plaintiff also confirmed it would withdraw these subpoenas if the co- defendants were to accept service. In light of this, the purpose of the subpoenas does not appear improper, and instead seek discoverable information. The IDC is concluded as unresolved, and thus the scheduled Motion to Quash should proceed on the merits. Case Events Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings May 23, 2024 2:00 PM Motion to Quash Greenberg, Susan Courtroom 2B July 29, 2024 9:00 AM Case Management Conference Mau, Michael L. Courtroom H Pena, Ruben 2