On April 02, 2019 a
Minutes - Civil -
was filed
involving a dispute between
Albert Ristau,
Heath Ristau,
Shirley Wright,
Wright, Shirley, Successor Trustee Of Wright Trust,
Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc.,
and
David Flournoy,
Frieda Fisher-Dubois,
Jennifer Flournoy,
John Flournoy,
Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc.,
Myles Flournoy,
Placer Title Company,
William Flournoy,
Likely Land & Livestock, Co.,
for Civil-Roseville
in the District Court of Placer County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF PLACER
Date: February 28, 2020 Time: 8:30 AM
Judge: Glenn M. Holley Dept.: LM
Reporter: Clerk:
Wright, Shirley etal vs.Likely Land & Livestock Co., a TC Present
Inc.et al
(_] Present
(_]And related Cross Action(s) Case # S-CV-0042799
Law and Motion Minutes
Proceedings RE: Motion: Compel -/ Motion: Quash/Motion: Admissions
CJ Dropped. (_]Continued to C by Plaintiff[_] by Defendant
CJ by Stipulation [(_]
by Court
(_]Matter argued and submitted.
[_]Submitted on points and authorities without (J argument (1)appearance.
(_]Motion/Petition granted. [_] Motion/Petition denied.
[_]Demurrer [_]sustained (J overruled [J without (] with leave to [_] amend (_]answer.
(J Counsel appointed for:
[_]Taken under submission.
[_]Debtor is sworn and retired with counsel for examination.
J Stipulation to [Judge Pro Tem [_]Commissioner executed in open court.
[J Counsel for to prepare the written order and submit itto opposing counsel for approval as
to content and form.
(_]Other .
Nine tentative ruling is adopted as the ruling of the court,to wit:
Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery and Deem Requests for Admission
Admitted
Defendants’ motion to compel responses to discovery requests and to
deem requests for admission admitted is denied as moot in light of
assertion that discovery responses have now been served. The
plaintiffs’
MI 00 0 0 A
~ -~
declines to assess the adequacy of the responses for the purpose of the
court
instant motion. Defendants are awarded sanctions in the amount of $810 from
plaintiffs’ counsel. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).
Motion to Quash Depositions Subpoenas and for Protective Order
As a preliminary matter, the court has considered plaintiffs’ untimely
reply in ruling on this motion.
Plaintiffs move to quash a deposition subpoena for production of
business records served on law firm Wells, Small, Fleharty & Weil, and
depositions subpoenas served on Steve A. Small, Esq. and Dara Stead.
Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records
The deposition subpoena for production of business records seeks:
Any and all records pertaining to Shirley Wright and The Wright
1990 Trust and all amendments thereto along with other Estate
planning documents and any and all records reflecting any and all
appointments Shirley Wright had with your law firm in September,
October, November of 2018 as well as the year of 2019 to date.
On its face, the subpoena is overbroad, seeks documents that are not
relevant to this lawsuit, and seeks documents which are protected by the
attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. In ruling on
plaintiffs’ motion, the court may issue an order “quashing the subpoena
~ ama
or directing compliance with it upon those terms or
entirely, modifying it,
court shall declare, including protective orders.” Code
conditions as the
Civ. Proc. § 1987.1(a).
this case, the court finds that the subpoena may be modified.
In
defendants argue that The Wright 1990 Trust and all amendments
Specifically,
are not privileged, and are directly relevant and probative in this
thereto
action, as property that is the subject of this action was placed into the
trust, and trust language may speak to how the parties intended the property
to be distributed. Plaintiffs do not establish that The Wright 1990 Trust
itself is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Plaintiffs alternatively argue that the Trust is protected by the
constitutional right to privacy, as it contains personal financial
information relating to plaintiffs. See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior
Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656. Where discovery seeks to invade the
constitutional right to privacy, the party seeking the discovery must show
that the information sought is directly relevant to claims at issue in the
litigation, there is a compelling need for the information, and _ the
information is essential to a fair resolution of the lawsuit. Alch v.
Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425. In this case, the court
agrees that the trust documents themselves may be directly relevant to claims
issue in this litigation, and that there is a compelling need for the
at
particularly because the subject property was placed into the
information,
trust, and the trust may speak to the intended disposition of the property.
~ —_
the fact that Shirley Wright may have met with counsel in
In addition,
time frame is not itself information that is privileged under
the identified
privilege or work product protection. Therefore, to the
the attorney-client
deponent possesses responsive documents that are not
extent the responding
otherwise privileged or protected, such documents should be produced.
these two narrow categories of documents, defendants do not show
Beyond
that any other documents maintained in the law firm’s client files relating
to Shirley Wright or The Wright 1990 Trust should be produced. Defendants do
not establish any waiver of the attorney-client privilege as to
communications between counsel and their clients, nor do defendants establish
any waiver of applicable attorney work product protections. Accordingly, the
court will quash the depositions subpoena in part, with the exceptions noted
7
above.
Deposition of Steve Small
Plaintiff's motion to quash the deposition of Steve Small is granted in
part.
First, there is no blanket prohibition on taking the deposition of an
attorney. The court notes that it does not agree that Mr. Small can be
compelled to give testimony regarding George Wright’s intentions in drafting
the Wright 1990 Trust, as such testimony would be necessarily intertwined
with plaintiff Shirley Wright’s intentions and communications. Nevertheless,
Mr. Small, his counsel, and/or counsel for plaintiffs retain the right to
assert appropriate objections, including on the grounds of the attorney-
~ |
client privilege or attorney work product protection. Accordingly, the court
will not quash the deposition subpoena as to Mr. Small’s appearance.
With respect to the request for production of “{a]ll calendar notes &
entries regarding any and all meetings with Shirley Wright and/or Albert
during August, September, October or November 2017”, the motion is
Ristau
granted in part. The fact that Shirley Wright or Albert Ristau may have met
with counsel in the identified time frame is not itself privileged
information. To the extent deponent possesses responsive documents that are
not otherwise privileged or protected, such documents should be produced.
However, defendants have not established a waiver of the attorney-client
privilege as to communications between counsel and their clients, nor do
defendants establish any waiver of applicable attorney work product
protection. The motion is granted as to any documents subject to the
foregoing privilege or protection.
Deposition of Dara Stead
Plaintiff’s motion to quash the deposition of Dara Stead is denied.
is no blanket prohibition on taking the deposition of an
There
attorney, or the attorneys’ staff. Ms. Stead, her counsel, and/or counsel
retain the right to assert appropriate objections, including
for plaintiffs
-~ >
on the grounds of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product
protection.
Motion to Compel Document Production
Defendants move to compel production of documents in response to the
deposition subpoena for production of business records served on law firm
Wells, Small, Fleharty & Weil, the same deposition subpoena that is the
subject of plaintiffs’ motion to quash. In line with the court’s ruling on
plaintiffs’ motion to quash, defendants’ motion to compel is granted in part.
The deponent shall produce the Wright 1990 Trust and all amendments thereto.
Deponent shall also produce documents which reflect meetings with Shirley
Wright during the identified time frame, to the extent such documents exist
and are not otherwise privileged or protected.
Plaintiff's request for sanctions and statutory penalties is denied as
the notice of motion does not identify the person, party or attorney against
whom sanctions are sought.