243 Cal. App. 4th 741
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Barclays obtained a $47,186,985.38 New York judgment against SCC; the judgment was domesticated in California and assigned to Western Albuquerque Land Holdings (Western).
- Western sought postjudgment discovery from SCC under Code Civ. Proc. § 708.030 (requests for production). SCC produced some documents but refused Requests Nos. 14, 21, 22, 23, and 37.
- Request 14 sought businesses in which SCC’s current/former officers, shareholders, or directors had interests; Requests 21–23 sought documents concerning assets, bank/brokerage records, and financial records of entities that are or were SCC subsidiaries or affiliates; Request 37 sought bankruptcy/insolvency/receivership information for such entities.
- SCC objected on grounds the requests sought third-party documents, violated privacy rights, were vague, and were overbroad. SCC also previously prevented its corporate secretary (an attorney) from testifying about third-party entities on privilege grounds.
- The trial court granted Western’s motion to compel responses to the five requests; SCC appealed the order. The appellate court exercised discretion to treat the appeal as a writ petition and retained jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Western) | Defendant's Argument (SCC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §708.030 authorizes compelling production of documents relating to third parties when those documents are in the judgment debtor’s possession, custody, or control | §708.030 permits requests for any document in the judgment debtor’s possession/custody/control relevant to enforcing the judgment, regardless if the document concerns third parties | §708.030 cannot be used to obtain third‑party documents; that would circumvent §708.120 and render it meaningless | Court: §708.030 applies to documents in the debtor’s possession/custody/control even if they concern third parties; §708.120 remains the route to compel third parties themselves to appear |
| Whether the requests invade privacy rights of individuals (officers, shareholders, directors) | Discovery of financial/business connections is necessary to enforce judgment; privacy can be protected by protective order | Requests improperly intrude on constitutionally protected personal privacy | Court: Individual financial privacy may be limited where discovery is needed to enforce a judgment; relevance and protective measures suffice to justify production |
| Whether corporations have a constitutional privacy right protecting their records | Western: corporate records relevant to alter-ego/asset tracing are discoverable | SCC: corporate privacy precludes compelled disclosure of broad corporate records | Court: Corporations do not enjoy a California constitutional privacy right; corporate privacy is lesser and balanced against discovery relevance; the requests were sufficiently relevant |
| Whether Requests 21–23 and 37 are overbroad or vague (e.g., undefined ‘subsidiary’/‘affiliate’) | Requests identify discrete categories (assets, bank/brokerage, financial records, bankruptcy history); statutory definitions govern corporate terms; not unduly burdensome | Requests are sweeping boilerplate, undefined, and impose an unreasonable burden | Court: Requests are sufficiently particular and not overbroad; Corporations Code defines subsidiary/affiliate such that further definition was unnecessary; SCC failed to demonstrate undue burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries, 6 Cal.4th 644 (discusses standards for appealability of postjudgment orders)
- Rogers v. Wilcox, 62 Cal.App.2d 978 (orders for judgment debtor appearance not appealable as final determinations)
- Roden v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 130 Cal.App.4th 211 (postjudgment §708.030 discovery order held nonappealable in that context)
- Macaluso v. Superior Court, 219 Cal.App.4th 1042 (appealability analysis for third‑party subpoena orders)
- Fox Johns Lazar Pekin & Wexler, APC v. Superior Court, 219 Cal.App.4th 1210 (treated similar postjudgment discovery appeal as writ; distinguishing third‑party subpoena contexts)
- Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.App.4th 216 (limits on overly broad subpoenas/requests and burden on responding party)