UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2011
FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK OWNERS'ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
RICHARD SINCLAIR, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO QUASH SUBPOENAS ISSUED TO UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., HICAGO TITLE CO. AND BUDGET FINANCE COMPANY
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE CO. FIDELITY NATIONAL AS MOOT (Document 521)
(Documents 515, 518, 524)
Defendant Richard Sinclair filed the instant Motions to Quash Subpoenas for the Production of Business Records on March 28, 2011. The motion was heard on April 29, 2011, before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Daniel Cho appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners Association ("Fox Hollow"), California Equity Management Group, Inc., ("CEMG") and Andrew Katakis. Defendant Richard Sinclair appeared on his own behalf.
This action consists of three consolidated actions: (1) an action brought by Fox Hollow on April 4, 2003, primarily alleging misuse of association funds in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act by Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust LLC, Mauctrst, LLC and Capstone LLC; (2) an action brought by CEMG, the current owner of the development, against Defendants, alleging violation of RICO statutes, conversion of rent proceeds, quiet title and reformation of a written instrument; and (3) an action commenced by Defendants, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, against CEMG and its principal, Andrew Katakis, alleging breach of Fox Hollow regulations, breach of fiduciary duties and violation of California Corporations Code section 8333.
On July 21, 2010, after obtaining leave of Court, Fox Hollow and CEMG filed a Consolidated Complaint. The Complaint involves an allegedly fraudulent scheme concerning a 35-unit town home complex in Turlock, California, known as Fox Hollow of Turlock ("the Property"). Fox Hollow is the Homeowners' Association for the Property and CEMG is the record owner of lots contained within the Property, the successor in interest to lenders who extended loans secured by lots within the Property, and the assignee of the rights of certain tenants who entered into leases for units within the Property. Defendants and cross-claimants Mauctrst, Lairtrust and Capstone are limited liability companies that were allegedly used to convert Fox Hollow funds, effect property transfers, obtain loans, prosecute dilatory lawsuits and carry out other parts of the alleged schemes that form the basis for the RICO claims in the Consolidated Complaint.
On August 10, 2010, Defendants filed a cross claim against CEMG, Fox Hollow and Andrew Katakis.
Pursuant to the August 20, 2010, Supplemental Scheduling Conference Order, discovery is due by June 15, 2011. Trial is set for December 6, 2011.
Defendant Sinclair filed the instant motions to quash on March 28, 2011.
Defendant Sinclair moves to quash subpoenas for document production issued in March 2011 to Union Bank of California, N.A., Chicago Title Insurance Co. and Budget Finance Co. Sinclair also moved to quash a subpoena issued to Fidelity National Title Co., though this subpoena has been withdrawn. Declaration of Greg Durbin, ¶ 3.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45permits a party to serve a subpoena commanding a non-party to attend and testify at a deposition or produce documents. Such a subpoena is subject to the relevancy requirements of Rule 26. Rule 45(c)(3)(a) permits the Court to quash or modify a subpoena in certain circumstances, including where the subpoena requests "disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception of waiver applies."
The subpoenas at issue request information relating to loan transactions underlying Plaintiffs' allegations. Despite Defendant's contention that the requested documents are not relevant, the documents relate directly to the financing of the loan transactions. Defendant's concern about disclosure of private financial information can be adequately addressed by a stipulated protective order.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motions to Quash subpoenas issued to Union Bank of California, N.A., Chicago Title Insurance Co. and Budget Finance Co. are DENIED. The parties are directed to meet and confer to craft a protective order sufficient to protect Defendant's private financial information.
Defendant's motion to quash the subpoena issued to Fidelity National Title Co. is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.