AIMCO VENEZIA LLC VS YAVUZ CANSIZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0472    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: O

Case Name: Aimco Venezia LLC v. Yavuz Cansiz

SUBJECT: MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Yavuz Cansiz

RESP. PARTY: Plaintiff Aimco Venezia LLC  

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Cansiz’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena is DENIED. Defendant’s request for sanction is DENIED.  Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in opposition to this motion is DENIED.  Plaintiff did not submit a requested amount of sanctions under CCP ;1987.2, nor does Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration indicate an amount of sanctions. 

Defendant Cansiz’s objections to the motion to quash are overruled.  The deposition subpoena in question was served on AirBnB on May 4, 2020.  The subpoena seeks (1) any and all communications and documents between AirBnB and Defendant Canisz for the period between January 20, 2017 and September 30, 2018; (2) any and all current or past communications and documents pertaining to the property during that same period; and (3) all documents and communications, which refer, in whole or in part to the property and/or Cansiz during that same time period.  These categories overlap, but their overlap does not justify quashing the subpoena.

Defendant Cansiz’s affirmative defenses based on laches, waiver and estoppel are irrelevant to the motion to quash.  Affirmative defenses are to the complaint, not to a request for discovery. 

The requests are not overly broad or insufficiently specific.  AirBnB’s relevance to this action is solely as the organization through which Defendant advertised and leased his unit to AirBnB users.  This fact alone narrows the scope of the requests at issue.  There are also only three requests, which overlap.  The requests are also narrow in scope, limited to the specific time period during which Defendant leased the property from Plaintiff and communications and documents pertaining to Defendant Cansiz and the property.  The requests are not impermissibly overbroad or vague.

Finally, Defendant Cansiz’s privacy objection is overruled. Defendant is correct that financial information is clearly protected by the right of privacy and there is a reasonable expectation of privacy over one’s financial records.  “There is a right to privacy in confidential customer information whatever form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.”  Fortunato v. Sup.Ct. (Ingrassia) (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 475, 481.  Plaintiff concedes that the deposition subpoena is intended to obtain AirBnb’s records regarding the amount earned by Defendant from leasing the unit through it.  As such, the records sought will likely include Defendant’s financial earnings from AirBnB rentals.  However, while the request intrudes on Defendant’s privacy interest, there is no showing of a serious intrusion on Defendant’s privacy.  Any privacy objection could easily be addressed by a protective order.  The records sought are directly relevant to questions at the heart of the litigation.  Plaintiff is seeking to disgorge any profits Defendant earned by renting the unit through AirBnB.  Plaintiff is entitled to seek records reflecting Defendant’s earnings from AirBnB to establish both breach and damages.  The documents requested are directly relevant to these essential elements of Plaintiff’s causes of action.