Before the Court this day is a defense motion to quash plaintiff’s subpoena issued to Oracle Eloqua.  Since the filing of the motion, the issues have been reduced to a single request: documents relating to ownership of “”   Plaintiff wants this information because it suspects that defendants may be behind this entity based on some similarities between emails emanating from defendants and an email emanating from Strategic Funding.  According to plaintiff, if defendants are indeed behind this entity, the email helps establish that defendants are still using plaintiff’s trade secret information to solicit clients.  Defendant claims this is a wild, and pointless, fishing expedition.

In California, discovery is purposefully broad.  With certain exceptions, parties have a right to inquire about any matter which – based on reason, logic and common sense – might (1) be admissible, (2) lead to admissible evidence, or (3) reasonably assist that party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial and/or facilitating resolution.  See Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557; Lewis v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 561, 572-573; Children’s Hospital Central California v. Blue Cross of California (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1276-1277.  Neither relevance nor admissibility are the test.  Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1397.  To some extent, wild, and pointless, fishing expeditions are permissible.

Defendants’ motion to quash is devoid of any cogent, legal basis for interfering with plaintiff’s request to Oracle.  Defendants contend that the document descriptions are vague, but not so.  Defendants contend the documents sought are not reasonably calculated.  Not so.  Defendants content that Oracle should not be bothered – but of course Oracle filed no objection to the subpoena so it seems Oracle is willing to absorb any burden of production.

Motion to quash subpoena is DENIED.