Preview
Louis A. Gonzalez Jr., State Bar No. 157373
Igonzalez@weintraub.com F Superior Court of California F
Zack S$. Thompson, State Bar No. 317110 County of Butte
zthompson@weintraub.com | |
WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN L 2/17/2021 L
Law Corporation
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814 D Komi ay cus D
(916) 558-6000 — Main —
By Deputy
(916) 446-1611 — Facsimile Electronically FILED
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Erik Benik,
Wishbone Ranch, LLC, and James Heath
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
1] ERIK BENIK, an individual; WISHBONE Case No. 18CV03508
RANCH, LLC, a California limited liabilit
12 company; and JAMES HEATH, an individual, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
13 MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY
SUBPOENA TO TRI COUNTIES BANK
Plaintiffs,
14 Date: February 24, 2021
VS
Time: 9:00 a.m.
15 Dept: TBD
16 13290 CONTRACTORS LANE, LLC, a Complaint Filed: October 23, 2018
California limited liability company; FAC Filed: March 15, 2019
17 RICHARD BRINGGOLD, an individual;
Trial Date: April 20, 2021
KATHRYN EGAN, an individual and DOES 2
18 through 25, inclusive,
19 Defendants.
20
21 | INTRODUCTION
22 Defendants have already conceded that their Subpoena improperly sought private
23 financial and tax documents about Plaintiff Erik Benik’s non-party business, Nor-Cal Laser,
24 Inc.—including Mr. Benik’s private financial and tax documents and the tax documents of Mr.
25 Benik’s parents. One week after Plaintiffs filed this motion, Defendants’ counsel contacted
26 deponent Tri Counties Bank and attempted to clarify the scope of the Subpoena, though not
27 using language that addresses Plaintiffs’ objections. (See Finch Decl. at 2:1-5 & Exh. 1). Then,
28 in Defendants’ opposition, they ask the court to exclude tax returns from the scope of the
{3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
or Modify Subpoena
Subpoena. (See Defs.’ Opp. at 6:20-21.)
But, even ignoring that Defendants initially sought private tax information about
Mr. Benik, his non-party business, and his parents, Defendants have still failed to justify their
Subpoena. Two of Defendants’ contrived explanations make no sense, given that Nor-Cal
Laser sought the loan Defendants seek information about in December 2017, well after the
time periods they claim they are interested in. Defendants offer only conclusory assertions and
fail to offer any logical explanation as to how a loan obtained by a non-party business in
December 2017 could shed any light on “1) whether Plaintiff Benik misrepresented his
financial position when entering into the lease effective December 1, 2016 [(executed in
10 September 2016)]” or “2) whether Plaintiff Benik could perform under the lease prion [sic] to
1] entering into the lease agreement effective June 1, 2017.” (See Defs.’ Opp. at 5:15-18'%.)
12 This anachronistic justification cannot be sufficient to justify the Subpoena, even excluding the
13 tax documents Defendants now concede they improperly sought.
14 Nor can Defendants claim that Mr. Benik’s credibility justifies this Subpoena: “evidence
15 of specific instances of [a witness's] conduct relevant only as tending to prove a trait of his
16 character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.” (Evid. Code, § 787.)
17 In other words, because Mr. Benik’s statements about a loan obtained by his non-party
18 business are not of consequence to the determination of whether Plaintiffs have an option to
19 purchase the property at issue in this case, Defendants will not be allowed to impeach his
20 credibility based on those inconsequential statements. Again, Defendants’ contrived reasoning
21 fails to justify the remaining, invasive scope of their concededly improper Subpoena.
22 Finally, even granting a tangential connection between the loans for Mr. Benik’s non-
23 party business and this case, Defendants still have no justification sufficient to overcome
24 Mr. Benik’s privacy rights in his financial information, not to mention the privacy rights of the
25 non-party consumers whose private financial information would also be revealed. Accordingly,
26 the Court should quash the Subpoena in its entirety or at least modify it to prevent the
27 disclosure of irrelevant private financial and tax documents, including redacting information
28 concerning non-parties.
{3101754.DOCX;}
Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
or Modify Subpoena
I. ARGUMENT
As a reminder of what is actually at issue in this case, Plaintiffs allege: 1) various breach
of contract theories against 13290 Contractors Lane; 2) a false promise claim against all
Defendants; 3) interference with contractual relations and unfair competition claims against all
Defendants; and 4) fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims against Ms. Egan in
her capacity as a licensed real estate professional. (See Compl. at 1 17-49, 64-102.)
Plaintiffs also seek, as potential remedies, reformation of the agreement between the parties
and declaratory relief. (See Compl. at 11 50-63.) Defendants dismissed their cross-complaint
on April 13, 2020. (Thompson Decl. at 1 5 & Ex. 4.)
10 None of these claims require proof of any performance by or capability of Nor-Cal
1] Laser, which is not a party to any of the agreements at issue or a party to this case. Nor do any
12 defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims turn on the private financial information of non-party Nor-Cal
13 Laser. Instead, Defendants have steadfastly claimed that the purchase option does not exist,
14 not that Mr. Benik could not perform if they gave him the chance. (See Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at
15 3:6-10, 4:6-7, 13-141, 22.)
16 A Defendants’ claims of relevance fail logically and as a matter of law.
17 Defendants offer three justifications for seeking private financial information of
18 Mr. Benik, his non-party business, and his parents: “Plaintiffs financial information is relevant to
19 1) whether Plaintiff Benik mispresented his financial position when entering into the lease
20 effective December 1, 2016; 2) whether Plaintiff Benik could perform under the lease prior to
21 entering into the lease agreement effective June 1, 2017; 3) whether Plaintiff Benik is credible
22 as to his statements made under penalty of perjury.”
”
(Defs.’ Opp. at 5:15-18%.) Each of these
23 justifications fails.
24 The first two justifications completely ignore the passing of time. Defendants claim they
25 are interested in a loan that Nor-Cal Laser obtained the loan from Tri Counties Bank in
26 December 2017. (See Defs.’ Opp. at 3:17-18; Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at 3:25-28.) This is more
27 than a year after the execution of the first lease between the parties, (see Benik Decl. at 2:3;
28 Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at 1:25-28), but Defendants offer no reason why non-party Nor-Cal Laser’s
{3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
or Modify Subpoena
loan application so long after the fact would have any bearing on Mr. Benik’s representations
prior to entering into that lease. Nor do Defendants explain how Nor-Cal Laser’s loan
application would bear on whether Mr. Benik could perform when he signed the June lease six
months earlier, much less why his supposed ability to perform matters in this contract action,
rather than actual performance. Defendants offer no authority other than general principles
about relevance, but Defendants’ justifications here are precisely the sort of tenuous reasoning
that does not “appear[] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”
(See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) And, of course, Defendants ignore the other applicable
general rule, that “[t]he court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden,
10 expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information
1] sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd.
12 (2).)
13 For Defendants’ third purported justification, the law specifically forecloses their
14 proposed basis for relevance. Evidence Code section 787 states that, subject to exceptions not
15 relevant here, “evidence of specific instances of his conduct relevant only as tending to prove a
16 trait of his character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.” (Evid.
17 Code, § 787.) The Evidence Code “does not allow irrelevant evidence to be introduced under
18 the guise of impeachment.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 327.) “As the
19 courts have said, ‘[C]ollateral and irrelevant matter[s] . may not be used for impeachment. ...
20 “(A] party cannot cross-examine his adversary’s witness upon irrelevant matters, for the purpose
21 of eliciting something to be contradicted.” ... [I]f a question is put to a witness on cross-
22 examination which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted by
23 the party who asked him the question.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
24 Here, Defendants’ planned attempt to impeach Mr. Benik about a loan to a non-party
25 business that has no bearing on any of the claims or defenses at issue is directly contrary to the
26 law. Defendants’ general citations regarding relevance do not explain how evidence that
27 contravenes the rules of the Evidence Code could possibly lead to the discovery of admissible
28 evidence. Accordingly, the Court should reject Defendants’ proffered justifications and quash
{3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
or Modify Subpoena
the subpoena in its entirety.
B Defendants fail to justify violating Mr. Benik’s and the non-parties’ rights to privacy.
Even granting a tangential connection between the loans for Mr. Benik’s non-party
business and this case, Defendants still have no justification sufficient to overcome Mr. Benik’s
privacy rights in his financial information, not to mention the privacy rights of the non-party
consumers whose private financial information would also be revealed. Again, Defendants
offer only general authority, which in fact demonstrates the high bar Defendants must
overcome: “directly relevant to the action, and essential to a fair determination thereof.” (See
Defs.’ Opp. at 6:3-4.) And, again, Defendants offer nothing other than the conclusory
10 assertion that financial information involving a loan application by a non-party business that
1] includes information about other non-parties clears that high bar. (See id. at 6:8-12.)
12 Bizarrely, Defendants reference the parties’ stipulated protective order, to which Tri Counties
13 Bank is not subject, as if it has some effect on the Subpoena.
14 The bottom line is that the document categories in the Subpoena explicitly seek private
15 financial information of Mr. Benik and non-parties Nor-Cal Laser and Larry and Joy Benik.
16 Because these document requests invoke the right to privacy, the burden is on Defendants to
17 demonstrate a compelling interest for disclosure. Yet, as detailed above, such financial
18 documents have no bearing on the issues in this case. Accordingly, there is no justification for
19 breaching either Mr. Benik’s or the non-parties’ privacy rights by forcing the disclosure of
20 documents related to these loan applications, and the Court should quash the Subpoena for
21 this reason as well.
22 Cc The Court should sanction Defendants because the Subpoena is oppressive.
23 In making an order on a motion to quash or modify a subpoena, the court has the
24 discretion to award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
25 including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds that the motion was opposed in bad faith
26 without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was
27 oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).)
28
Here, Defendants have already started backpedaling on their Subpoena, conceding
Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
{3101754.DOCX;} or Modify Subpoena
that its scope was improper. Defendants attempt to justify what's left of the Subpoena, but they
have failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court should sanction Defendants and their attorneys in
the amount of $2,210, plus $870 if Plaintiffs need to file a reply brief, which is the amount of
attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in bringing this motion, plus the cost of filing the motion.
(Thompson Decl. at { 6.)
Il. CONCLUSION
Because the Subpoena fails to meet the relevance requirement for discovery in this
action and seeks to invade the privacy rights of Mr. Benik and several non-parties, the Court
should quash the Subpoena or modify it to prevent the disclosure of private financial and tax
10 documents, especially information regarding non-parties.
1]
12 Respecttully submitted,
13 Dated: February 17, 2021. WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN
Law Corporation
14
15
16 By:
Yo Sop
Louis A. Gonzalez Jr.
17 Zack Thompson
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Erik Benik, Wishbone
19 Ranch, LLC, and James Heath
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
{3101754.DOCX;}
Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
or Modify Subpoena
Erik Benik, et al. v. 13290 Contractors Lane, LLC, et al.
Butte County Superior Court Case No.: 18CV03508
PROOF OF SERVICE
lam a citizen of the United States, employed in the City and County of Sacramento,
California. My business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Eleventh Floor, Sacramento, California
95814. |am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. On today’s date, |
caused to be served the following:
REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH OR
MODIFY SUBPOENA TO TRI COUNTIES BANK
United States mail by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully
prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s
practice whereby the mail is deposited in a United States mailbox after the close
10 of the day’s business.
1] By personally delivering, or causing to be delivered, a true copy thereof to
the persons at the addresses set forth below.
12
Via Overnight
13
Via email
14
15
IGregory M. Finch Karen M. Goodman
16 Signature Law Group, LLP [Goodman Law Corporation
13400 Bradshaw Road, Suite A-4A 3840 Watt Avenue, Building A
17 Sacramento, CA 95827-2614 Sacramento, CA 95821
Email: gfinch@signaturelawgroup.com Email: kgoodman@goodman-law.com
18
19 Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Defendant Kathryn Egan
13290 Contractors Lane, LLC and
20 Richard Bringgold
21
22 | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
23 Executed February 17, 2021, at Sacramento, California.
24
aC
25 te cy IX
26 Tracy Thorne
27
28
MPAs ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash
{3101754.DOCX;}
or Modify Subpoena
Preview
Louis A. Gonzalez Jr., State Bar No. 157373 Igonzalez@weintraub.com F Superior Court of California F Zack S$. Thompson, State Bar No. 317110 County of Butte zthompson@weintraub.com | | WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN L 2/17/2021 L Law Corporation 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 D Komi ay cus D (916) 558-6000 — Main — By Deputy (916) 446-1611 — Facsimile Electronically FILED Attorneys for Plaintiffs Erik Benik, Wishbone Ranch, LLC, and James Heath SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 10 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 1] ERIK BENIK, an individual; WISHBONE Case No. 18CV03508 RANCH, LLC, a California limited liabilit 12 company; and JAMES HEATH, an individual, REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ 13 MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA TO TRI COUNTIES BANK Plaintiffs, 14 Date: February 24, 2021 VS Time: 9:00 a.m. 15 Dept: TBD 16 13290 CONTRACTORS LANE, LLC, a Complaint Filed: October 23, 2018 California limited liability company; FAC Filed: March 15, 2019 17 RICHARD BRINGGOLD, an individual; Trial Date: April 20, 2021 KATHRYN EGAN, an individual and DOES 2 18 through 25, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 | INTRODUCTION 22 Defendants have already conceded that their Subpoena improperly sought private 23 financial and tax documents about Plaintiff Erik Benik’s non-party business, Nor-Cal Laser, 24 Inc.—including Mr. Benik’s private financial and tax documents and the tax documents of Mr. 25 Benik’s parents. One week after Plaintiffs filed this motion, Defendants’ counsel contacted 26 deponent Tri Counties Bank and attempted to clarify the scope of the Subpoena, though not 27 using language that addresses Plaintiffs’ objections. (See Finch Decl. at 2:1-5 & Exh. 1). Then, 28 in Defendants’ opposition, they ask the court to exclude tax returns from the scope of the {3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Subpoena. (See Defs.’ Opp. at 6:20-21.) But, even ignoring that Defendants initially sought private tax information about Mr. Benik, his non-party business, and his parents, Defendants have still failed to justify their Subpoena. Two of Defendants’ contrived explanations make no sense, given that Nor-Cal Laser sought the loan Defendants seek information about in December 2017, well after the time periods they claim they are interested in. Defendants offer only conclusory assertions and fail to offer any logical explanation as to how a loan obtained by a non-party business in December 2017 could shed any light on “1) whether Plaintiff Benik misrepresented his financial position when entering into the lease effective December 1, 2016 [(executed in 10 September 2016)]” or “2) whether Plaintiff Benik could perform under the lease prion [sic] to 1] entering into the lease agreement effective June 1, 2017.” (See Defs.’ Opp. at 5:15-18'%.) 12 This anachronistic justification cannot be sufficient to justify the Subpoena, even excluding the 13 tax documents Defendants now concede they improperly sought. 14 Nor can Defendants claim that Mr. Benik’s credibility justifies this Subpoena: “evidence 15 of specific instances of [a witness's] conduct relevant only as tending to prove a trait of his 16 character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.” (Evid. Code, § 787.) 17 In other words, because Mr. Benik’s statements about a loan obtained by his non-party 18 business are not of consequence to the determination of whether Plaintiffs have an option to 19 purchase the property at issue in this case, Defendants will not be allowed to impeach his 20 credibility based on those inconsequential statements. Again, Defendants’ contrived reasoning 21 fails to justify the remaining, invasive scope of their concededly improper Subpoena. 22 Finally, even granting a tangential connection between the loans for Mr. Benik’s non- 23 party business and this case, Defendants still have no justification sufficient to overcome 24 Mr. Benik’s privacy rights in his financial information, not to mention the privacy rights of the 25 non-party consumers whose private financial information would also be revealed. Accordingly, 26 the Court should quash the Subpoena in its entirety or at least modify it to prevent the 27 disclosure of irrelevant private financial and tax documents, including redacting information 28 concerning non-parties. {3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena I. ARGUMENT As a reminder of what is actually at issue in this case, Plaintiffs allege: 1) various breach of contract theories against 13290 Contractors Lane; 2) a false promise claim against all Defendants; 3) interference with contractual relations and unfair competition claims against all Defendants; and 4) fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims against Ms. Egan in her capacity as a licensed real estate professional. (See Compl. at 1 17-49, 64-102.) Plaintiffs also seek, as potential remedies, reformation of the agreement between the parties and declaratory relief. (See Compl. at 11 50-63.) Defendants dismissed their cross-complaint on April 13, 2020. (Thompson Decl. at 1 5 & Ex. 4.) 10 None of these claims require proof of any performance by or capability of Nor-Cal 1] Laser, which is not a party to any of the agreements at issue or a party to this case. Nor do any 12 defenses to Plaintiffs’ claims turn on the private financial information of non-party Nor-Cal 13 Laser. Instead, Defendants have steadfastly claimed that the purchase option does not exist, 14 not that Mr. Benik could not perform if they gave him the chance. (See Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at 15 3:6-10, 4:6-7, 13-141, 22.) 16 A Defendants’ claims of relevance fail logically and as a matter of law. 17 Defendants offer three justifications for seeking private financial information of 18 Mr. Benik, his non-party business, and his parents: “Plaintiffs financial information is relevant to 19 1) whether Plaintiff Benik mispresented his financial position when entering into the lease 20 effective December 1, 2016; 2) whether Plaintiff Benik could perform under the lease prior to 21 entering into the lease agreement effective June 1, 2017; 3) whether Plaintiff Benik is credible 22 as to his statements made under penalty of perjury.” ” (Defs.’ Opp. at 5:15-18%.) Each of these 23 justifications fails. 24 The first two justifications completely ignore the passing of time. Defendants claim they 25 are interested in a loan that Nor-Cal Laser obtained the loan from Tri Counties Bank in 26 December 2017. (See Defs.’ Opp. at 3:17-18; Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at 3:25-28.) This is more 27 than a year after the execution of the first lease between the parties, (see Benik Decl. at 2:3; 28 Defs.’ RJN, Exh. A at 1:25-28), but Defendants offer no reason why non-party Nor-Cal Laser’s {3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena loan application so long after the fact would have any bearing on Mr. Benik’s representations prior to entering into that lease. Nor do Defendants explain how Nor-Cal Laser’s loan application would bear on whether Mr. Benik could perform when he signed the June lease six months earlier, much less why his supposed ability to perform matters in this contract action, rather than actual performance. Defendants offer no authority other than general principles about relevance, but Defendants’ justifications here are precisely the sort of tenuous reasoning that does not “appear[] reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.) And, of course, Defendants ignore the other applicable general rule, that “[t]he court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, 10 expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information 1] sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020, subd. 12 (2).) 13 For Defendants’ third purported justification, the law specifically forecloses their 14 proposed basis for relevance. Evidence Code section 787 states that, subject to exceptions not 15 relevant here, “evidence of specific instances of his conduct relevant only as tending to prove a 16 trait of his character is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness.” (Evid. 17 Code, § 787.) The Evidence Code “does not allow irrelevant evidence to be introduced under 18 the guise of impeachment.” (Bowman v. Wyatt (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 286, 327.) “As the 19 courts have said, ‘[C]ollateral and irrelevant matter[s] . may not be used for impeachment. ... 20 “(A] party cannot cross-examine his adversary’s witness upon irrelevant matters, for the purpose 21 of eliciting something to be contradicted.” ... [I]f a question is put to a witness on cross- 22 examination which is collateral or irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted by 23 the party who asked him the question.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) 24 Here, Defendants’ planned attempt to impeach Mr. Benik about a loan to a non-party 25 business that has no bearing on any of the claims or defenses at issue is directly contrary to the 26 law. Defendants’ general citations regarding relevance do not explain how evidence that 27 contravenes the rules of the Evidence Code could possibly lead to the discovery of admissible 28 evidence. Accordingly, the Court should reject Defendants’ proffered justifications and quash {3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena the subpoena in its entirety. B Defendants fail to justify violating Mr. Benik’s and the non-parties’ rights to privacy. Even granting a tangential connection between the loans for Mr. Benik’s non-party business and this case, Defendants still have no justification sufficient to overcome Mr. Benik’s privacy rights in his financial information, not to mention the privacy rights of the non-party consumers whose private financial information would also be revealed. Again, Defendants offer only general authority, which in fact demonstrates the high bar Defendants must overcome: “directly relevant to the action, and essential to a fair determination thereof.” (See Defs.’ Opp. at 6:3-4.) And, again, Defendants offer nothing other than the conclusory 10 assertion that financial information involving a loan application by a non-party business that 1] includes information about other non-parties clears that high bar. (See id. at 6:8-12.) 12 Bizarrely, Defendants reference the parties’ stipulated protective order, to which Tri Counties 13 Bank is not subject, as if it has some effect on the Subpoena. 14 The bottom line is that the document categories in the Subpoena explicitly seek private 15 financial information of Mr. Benik and non-parties Nor-Cal Laser and Larry and Joy Benik. 16 Because these document requests invoke the right to privacy, the burden is on Defendants to 17 demonstrate a compelling interest for disclosure. Yet, as detailed above, such financial 18 documents have no bearing on the issues in this case. Accordingly, there is no justification for 19 breaching either Mr. Benik’s or the non-parties’ privacy rights by forcing the disclosure of 20 documents related to these loan applications, and the Court should quash the Subpoena for 21 this reason as well. 22 Cc The Court should sanction Defendants because the Subpoena is oppressive. 23 In making an order on a motion to quash or modify a subpoena, the court has the 24 discretion to award the amount of reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, 25 including reasonable attorney's fees, if the court finds that the motion was opposed in bad faith 26 without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was 27 oppressive. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2, subd. (a).) 28 Here, Defendants have already started backpedaling on their Subpoena, conceding Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash {3101754.DOCX;} or Modify Subpoena that its scope was improper. Defendants attempt to justify what's left of the Subpoena, but they have failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court should sanction Defendants and their attorneys in the amount of $2,210, plus $870 if Plaintiffs need to file a reply brief, which is the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiffs in bringing this motion, plus the cost of filing the motion. (Thompson Decl. at { 6.) Il. CONCLUSION Because the Subpoena fails to meet the relevance requirement for discovery in this action and seeks to invade the privacy rights of Mr. Benik and several non-parties, the Court should quash the Subpoena or modify it to prevent the disclosure of private financial and tax 10 documents, especially information regarding non-parties. 1] 12 Respecttully submitted, 13 Dated: February 17, 2021. WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN Law Corporation 14 15 16 By: Yo Sop Louis A. Gonzalez Jr. 17 Zack Thompson 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Erik Benik, Wishbone 19 Ranch, LLC, and James Heath 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 {3101754.DOCX;} Reply Brief ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoena Erik Benik, et al. v. 13290 Contractors Lane, LLC, et al. Butte County Superior Court Case No.: 18CV03508 PROOF OF SERVICE lam a citizen of the United States, employed in the City and County of Sacramento, California. My business address is 400 Capitol Mall, Eleventh Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. |am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. On today’s date, | caused to be served the following: REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY SUBPOENA TO TRI COUNTIES BANK United States mail by placing such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid in the designated area for outgoing mail in accordance with this office’s practice whereby the mail is deposited in a United States mailbox after the close 10 of the day’s business. 1] By personally delivering, or causing to be delivered, a true copy thereof to the persons at the addresses set forth below. 12 Via Overnight 13 Via email 14 15 IGregory M. Finch Karen M. Goodman 16 Signature Law Group, LLP [Goodman Law Corporation 13400 Bradshaw Road, Suite A-4A 3840 Watt Avenue, Building A 17 Sacramento, CA 95827-2614 Sacramento, CA 95821 Email: gfinch@signaturelawgroup.com Email: kgoodman@goodman-law.com 18 19 Attorney for Defendants Attorney for Defendant Kathryn Egan 13290 Contractors Lane, LLC and 20 Richard Bringgold 21 22 | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed February 17, 2021, at Sacramento, California. 24 aC 25 te cy IX 26 Tracy Thorne 27 28 MPAs ISO Plaintiffs’ Motion to Quash {3101754.DOCX;} or Modify Subpoena