arrow left
arrow right
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
  • Wright, Shirley et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc. et al Other Tort: Business (07) document preview
						
                                

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.