Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (Judge Colleen Sterne)

Donald Boyd v. Elias Argyropoulos, et al.

CASE:???????Donald Boyd v. Elias Argyropoulos, et al.

Case No. 15CV03634 (Judge Sterne)

HEARING DATE:??????????????? November 28, 2016

MATTER:

Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records

ATTORNEYS:

Kate M. Neiswender for plaintiff Donald Boyd

Miles T. Goldrick for defendants Elias Argyropoulos and Prima Ventures Corporation

TENTATIVE RULING:??????? The motion of defendants to quash the deposition subpoena served on BOA is denied. BOA is ordered to produce the records identified in the deposition subpoena.

BACKGROUND:

On October 21, 2015, plaintiff Donald Boyd filed suit against defendant Elias Argyropoulos and his investment company, defendant Prima Ventures Corporation, for (1) fraud, (2) violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, and (3) elder abuse under Welfare and Institutions CodeSection 15600. Plaintiff alleges that defendants persuaded him to invest $125,000 in a project known as the ?Giant Estate,? which allegedly was an estate of a wealthy individual that was tied up in the courts, with the promise of a 10-to-1 return on his investment once the court action was concluded. Plaintiff lost all of his money in the project and now claims that the ?Giant Estate? project never existed and was nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiff recently served a deposition subpoena for production of business records on Bank of America, N.A. (?BOA?), defendants? bank. The subpoena seeks production of certain bank records for accounts under defendants? control. Defendants move to quash the subpoena on privacy grounds.

ANALYSIS:

The court has the authority to quash a deposition subpoena to protect a party from unreasonable demands, including unreasonable violations of the right to privacy. Code of Civil Procedure Section 1987.1, subdivision (a), provides:

?If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made . . . after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.?

California recognizes a right to privacy in one?s personal financial affairs, including bank records. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656. The right to privacy, however, is not absolute and where a party seeks disclosure of personal financial information the court must balance the privacy rights of the person subject to discovery against the right of litigants to discover relevant facts. Id., at 657. Also counterbalancing the right to privacy is Code of Civil ProcedureSection 2017.010, which states:

?[A]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action . . . if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.?

In this case, the deposition subpoena served on BOA seeks production of the following categories of documents for the period April 1, 2015 through April 1, 2016:

1. The monthly bank statements for all accounts under the names of Elias Argyropoulos and Prima Ventures Corporation.

2. All transfer of funds request forms for any account controlled by Elias Argyropoulos and Prima Ventures Corporation.

3. All documents that reflect wire transfers into any accounts controlled by Elias Argyropoulos and Prima Ventures Corporation.

(Argyropoulos Decl., ?2, Ex. 1.)

Defendants ask the court to quash the deposition subpoena on the ground that it violates their privacy rights. In addition, defendants cite Civil Code Section 3295, subdivision (c), which provides that, in cases where the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for punitive damages, as in this case, no pretrial discovery of the defendants? profits or financial statements shall be permitted unless the plaintiff first brings a motion, supported by appropriate declarations, establishing that there is a substantial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the punitive damages claim and the court enters an order permitting such discovery. See, Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 754, 759 (Section 3295, subdivision (c), was enacted by the legislature to protect a defendant from being forced to settle an unmeritorious lawsuit in order to protect his or her right to privacy).

The court disagrees that the deposition subpoena violates defendants? privacy rights or is intended to obtain information for plaintiff?s punitive damages claim. As set forth in plaintiff?s opposition, plaintiff alleges that defendants defrauded him out of $125,000. In a declaration dated May 25, 2016, defendant Elias Argyropoulos swore that he and his company received no payment or commission as the result of plaintiff?s investment, that he and plaintiff were the only individuals who invested in the ?Giant Estate? project, and that he had wired plaintiff?s money to a company called Relevance, LLC. (Neiswender Decl., ?2, Ex. A, Argyropoulos Decl., ?? 4, 6, 7.) However, plaintiff has learned that at least four other individuals, Eric Boyd, John Free, Armen Arzoomanian, and Armine Arzoomanian, also invested in the project at the encouragement of defendants and lost over $250,000. (Neiswender Decl., ?2.) The BOA records are therefore relevant to show who invested money with defendants in the ?Giant Estate? project, whether defendants took any part of the money as a commission, and whether Argyropoulos sent any of his own money to Relevance, LLC, as he claims. The bank records are also relevant to show how and when monies were transferred to Relevance, LLC and whether the ?Giant Estate? ever existed or was just a scam.

Based on the foregoing, defendants? motion to quash the BOA deposition subpoena will be denied. BOA is ordered to produce the records identified in the subpoena.