This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/05/2022 at 21:19:58 (UTC).

ALEXA PASSER, ET AL. VS HISTUDIOS INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/25/2020 ALEXA PASSER, filed a Labor - Wrongful Termination lawsuit against HISTUDIOS INC ,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are HOLLY J. FUJIE and BARBARA A. MEIERS. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6867

  • Filing Date:

    09/25/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Labor - Wrongful Termination

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

HOLLY J. FUJIE

BARBARA A. MEIERS

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DAVIS DRENNON

FUSSMAN DYLAN

PASSER ALEXA

TAYLOR MISTI

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

VINCER PETER

NOTORIOUS HOLDINGS LLC

HIMALAYA MEDIA INC.

BOTTICELLO MICHAEL

HISTUDIOS INC.

NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC

Defendants and Cross Defendants

HIMALAYA MEDIA INC.

HISTUDIOS INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

GAVRON MAX W.

ROSENTHAL NICHOLAS

Defendant Attorneys

SETHI RAHUL

REJALI SAMAN M.

FLYNN FRANCIS J.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT)

5/31/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT) OF 05/31/2022

5/31/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW RE: DISMISSAL AFTER SETTLEMENT) OF 05/31/2022

Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

5/4/2022: Notice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service

Request for Dismissal

5/4/2022: Request for Dismissal

Notice Of Rejection - Request For Dismissal

5/4/2022: Notice Of Rejection - Request For Dismissal

Request for Dismissal

5/4/2022: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

3/17/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 03/17/2022

3/17/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 03/17/2022

Notice of Settlement

3/17/2022: Notice of Settlement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

3/9/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/09/2022

3/9/2022: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 03/09/2022

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER

3/9/2022: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RE: REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL OF NH A...)

2/25/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: RE: REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL OF NH A...)

Notice - NOTICE WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL, MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

2/25/2022: Notice - NOTICE WITHDRAWAL OF THEIR MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL, MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Notice of Appearance

3/1/2022: Notice of Appearance

Notice of Ruling

2/9/2022: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PETER VINCER;...)

2/9/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PETER VINCER;...)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/24/2022: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

165 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Alexa Passer, et al. on 09/25/2020, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by PETER VINCER on 02/05/2021, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to the entire action

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketNon-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal After Settlement scheduled for 05/31/2022 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 56 updated: Result Date to 05/31/2022; Result Type to Held

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketMinute Order (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal After Settlement)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/31/2022
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal After Settlement) of 05/31/2022; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/18/2022
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Dismissal After Settlement scheduled for 05/20/2022 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 56 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 05/31/2022 10:30 AM

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Alexa Passer, et al. on 09/25/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff); Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff); Drennon Davis (Plaintiff); As to: HISTUDIOS INC. (Defendant); HIMALAYA MEDIA INC. (Defendant); NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Request For Dismissal; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 05/04/2022
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Alexa Passer, et al. on 09/25/2020, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis as to HISTUDIOS INC., HIMALAYA MEDIA INC., NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC, NOTORIOUS HOLDINGS LLC, PETER VINCER, and MICHAEL BOTTICELLO

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
277 More Docket Entries
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketAddress for Max W. Gavron (Attorney) updated

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6): Status Date changed from 10/02/2020 to 09/30/2020; Filed By: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff),Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff),Drennon Davis (Plaintiff),Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/02/2020; As To Parties: removed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 56 - Hon. Holly J. Fujie; Reason: Challenge / Recusal, by Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/28/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Barbara A. Meiers in Department 12 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff); Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff); Drennon Davis (Plaintiff); As to: HISTUDIOS INC. (Defendant); HIMALAYA MEDIA INC. (Defendant); NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff); Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff); Drennon Davis (Plaintiff); As to: HISTUDIOS INC. (Defendant); HIMALAYA MEDIA INC. (Defendant); NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff); Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff); Drennon Davis (Plaintiff); As to: HISTUDIOS INC. (Defendant); HIMALAYA MEDIA INC. (Defendant); NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Alexa Passer (Plaintiff); Misti Taylor (Plaintiff); Dylan Fussman (Plaintiff); Drennon Davis (Plaintiff); As to: HISTUDIOS INC. (Defendant); HIMALAYA MEDIA INC. (Defendant); NOTORIOUS MEDIA LLC (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******6867 Hearing Date: February 9, 2022 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

ALEXA PASSER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HISTUDIOS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: *******6867

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL

Date: February 9, 2022

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Jury Trial: November 7, 2022

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Kathleen Hartman (“Hartman”) and Sarah C. Varisco (“Varisco”) of the law firm Callahan, Thompson, Sherman & Caudill, LLP filed three motions to be relieved as counsel (collectively, the “Motions”) for Defendants: (1) Peter Vincer (“Vincer”); (2) Notorious Holdings, LLC (“NH”); and (3) Notorious Media, LLC (“NM”). The Motions are compliant with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362. The Motions are unopposed.

DISCUSSION

The court has discretion on whether to allow an attorney to withdraw, and a motion to withdraw will not be granted where withdrawal would prejudice the client. (Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915.)

With respect to each Motion, Hartman declares that irreconcilable differences have arisen between counsel and client, rendering the representation unreasonably difficult. The Court finds this to be an adequate basis for withdrawal. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motions. (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) NH and NM must be represented by counsel because they are business entities. The Court, on its own motion, CONTINUES the hearings on the: 1) motion to disqualify counsel currently set for February 23, 2022; 2) motion for reconsideration currently set for February 25, 2022; and 3) motion for protective order set for February 28, 2022 to March 10, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. The Court notes that although a motion for summary judgment hearing was reserved for February 25, 2022, no such motion has yet been filed and as the time has passed for adequate notice to be given for this date, the hearing is taken off calendar. The Court will hold an OSC regarding the representation by counsel of NH and NM on February 25, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 9th day of February 2022

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court



b'

Case Number: *******6867 Hearing Date: July 30, 2021 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Alexa Passer, et al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

HiStudios Inc., et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO.: *******6867

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL AND ORDER DESTRUCTION OF PRIVILIGED MATERIAL

Date: July 30, 2021

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Jury Trial: April 11, 2022

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Peter Vincer

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis, and Defendants Himalaya Media, Inc. and HiStudios, Inc.

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from the employment of Plaintiffs Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis (collectively “Plaintiffs”) with Defendants Himalaya Media, Inc. (“Himalaya”) and HiStudios, Inc. (“HiStudios”). On September 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging thirteen causes of action against Himalaya, HiStudios, their former CEO Peter Vincer (“Vincer”), and several of Vincer’s subsequent companies. Plaintiffs allege in pertinent part that that they were harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against during their employment. Vincer asserts that in early 2020 he, on behalf of himself and HiStudios, met with an attorney, Patricia Kinaga (“Kinaga”), to obtain legal advice regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. During one of the meetings, Vincer asserts that he asked Kinaga who she represented, and she said Vincer. As such, Vincer asserts that he expected that his communications with Kinaga would be confidential.

Plaintiffs recently issued a subpoena to Kinaga for records relating to an investigation of Vincer (the “Subpoena”). Vincer objected to the production of the records and filed a motion to quash the Subpoena because the documents requested are protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. Nevertheless, Himalaya and HiStudios’ counsel provided the privileged documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Vincer’s counsel has requested the allegedly privileged documents back and Plaintiffs’ counsel has refused to return and destroy the allegedly privileged documents.

Vincer moves the Court for a protective order regarding the allegedly privileged documents. Vincer also moves the Court to disqualify Plaintiffs, Himalaya, and HiStudios’ counsel and order the destruction of the allegedly privileged documents. Vincer further seeks an order that Plaintiffs, Himalaya, and HiStudios have thirty days to retain new counsel and that the disqualified counsel and the parties must not discuss or disseminate any allegedly privileged materials with any new counsel.

DISCUSSION

Motion for Protective Order

  1. Legal Standard

The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2017.020(a).) “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2016.040.)

The court shall restrict the frequency or extent of use of a discovery method provided in if it determines either of the following:

  1. The discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.

  1. The selected method of discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., ; 2019.030(a).)

Furthermore, the party seeking the protective order has the burden of showing good cause for the order sought. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Ca1.4th 245, 255.)

  1. The Subpoena

Vincer contends that the records sought by the Subpoena are protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges and cannot be disclosed.

Evidence Code ;954 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Subject to Section 912 and except as otherwise provided in this article, the client, whether or not a party, has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer if the privilege is claimed by: (a) The holder of the privilege; (b) A person who is authorized to claim the privilege by the holder of the privilege; or (c) The person who was the lawyer at the time of the confidential communication, but such person may not claim the privilege if there is no holder of the privilege in existence or if he is otherwise instructed by a person authorized to permit disclosure…

“The attorney-client privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer…’ The privilege ‘has been a hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost 400 years.’ Its fundamental purpose ‘is to safeguard the confidential relationship between clients and their attorneys so as to promote full and open discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual legal matters. Although exercise of the privilege may occasionally result in the suppression of relevant evidence, the Legislature of this state has determined that these concerns are outweighed by the importance of preserving confidentiality in the attorney-client relationship…‘The privilege is given on grounds of public policy in the belief that the benefits derived therefrom justify the risk that unjust decisions may sometimes result from the suppression of relevant evidence.’’ ‘[T]he privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular circumstances peculiar to the case.’” (Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 (citations omitted).)[1]

“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for other reasons apply.” (Id. at 733 (citations omitted).)

Vincer provided a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating that he met with Kinaga so that she could advise him about Plaintiffs’ complaints, how to respond to the complaints, investigations into the complaints, and legal ramifications about the complaints. (Vincer Decl., ¶ 2.) Vincer’s declaration states that during a meeting with Kinaga, Vincer asked Kinaga who she represented, and she responded that she represented Vincer. (Vincer Decl., ¶ 2.) As such, Vincer contends that he expected that their communications were confidential and would not be disclosed to others. (Vincer Decl., ¶ 3.) Here, Vincer has presented sufficient facts and evidence to support that he and Kinaga were in an attorney-client relationship, and that Vincer may refuse to disclose, and prevent others from disclosing, the confidential communication he had with Kinaga, including any documents that she prepared from the confidential communications.

In opposition to this position, Kinaga submitted a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating that she was hired by Himalaya and HiStudios to conduct an investigation into workplace misconduct, most of which concerned Vincer. (Kinaga Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6.) Kinaga also states that she interviewed Vincer, but at no time before, during, or after the investigation, did she state or say anything implying to him or anyone, that she represented or ever represented Vincer. (Kinaga Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)

Given the conflicting declarations relating to the attorney-client relationship between Vincer and Kinaga, the Court has insufficient evidence to make a determination as to the nature of their relationship. Determining whether Vincer and Kinaga were in an attorney-client relationship is essential to resolving the Motions because if Vincer and Kinaga were in an attorney-client relationship, then Vincer can refuse to disclose their confidential communications, including any documents that she prepared from the confidential communications. If Vincer and Kinaga were not in an attorney-client relationship, however, then Vincer cannot claim the attorney-client privilege, and Vincer would not be entitled to a protective order because Himalaya and HiStudios, as the holder of the privilege, would have properly disclosed the documents at issue. In addition, reaching a determination as to the existence or non-existence of the non-attorney-client relationship is necessary to reach a conclusion on Vincer’s Motion to Disqualify Plaintiffs, Himalaya, and HiStudios’ counsel .

As such, the Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of determining the nature of the relationship between Vincer and Kinaga. The Court will conduct such a hearing at the continued hearing on these motions on August 6, 2021 at 10 am.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 30th day of July 2021

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court


[1] “The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of whether it includes unprivileged material….‘[T]he privilege covers the transmission of documents which are available to the public, and not merely information in the sole possession of the attorney or client. In this regard, it is the actual fact of the transmission which merits protection, since discovery of the transmission of specific public documents might very well reveal the transmitter’s intended strategy.’” (Id. at 734 (citations omitted).)

'


b'

Case Number: *******6867 Hearing Date: July 16, 2021 Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Alexa Passer, et al.

Plaintiff,

vs.

HiStudios Inc., et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO.: *******6867

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL AND ORDER DESTRUCTION OF PRIVILIGED MATERIAL

Date: July 16, 2021

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

Jury Trial: April 11, 2022

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Peter Vincer

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis

The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

This matter arises from the employment of Plaintiffs Alexa Passer, Misti Taylor, Dylan Fussman, and Drennon Davis with Defendants Himalaya Media, Inc. (“Himalaya”) and HiStudios, Inc. (“HiStudios”).

On September 25, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint alleging thirteen causes of action against Himalaya, HiStudios, their former CEO Peter Vincer (“Vincer”), and several of Vincer’s subsequent companies. Plaintiffs allege in pertinent part that that they were harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against during their employment. According to this motion, in early 2020, Vincer on behalf of himself and HiStudios met with attorney Patricia Kinaga (“Kinaga”) to obtain legal advice regarding Plaintiffs’ claims. Vincer asserts that during one of the meetings, Vincer asked Kinaga, whom she represented, and she said Vincer and that therefore Vincer expected that his communications with Kinaga would be confidential.

Plaintiffs recently issued a subpoena to Kinaga for records relating to an investigation. Vincer objected to the production of the records and filed a motion to quash the subpoena. Himalaya and HiStudios’ counsel provided the privileged documents to Plaintiffs’ counsel. Vincer’s counsel has requested the return of the privileged documents and Plaintiffs’ counsel has refused to return and destroy the privileged documents.

Vincer moves the Court for a protective order regarding the privileged documents. Vincer also moves the Court to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel and order the destruction of the privileged documents. Vincer further seeks an order that Himalaya and HiStudios have thirty days to retain new counsel and that the disqualified counsel and the parties must not discuss or disseminate any privileged materials with any new counsel.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court rule 3.1113(j) provides that “all supporting memorandums and declarations must be attached to the notice of motion.”

California Rules of Court rule 8.54 also provides “[a] motion must be accompanied by a memorandum and, if it is based on matters outside the record, by declarations or other supporting evidence.”

Here, Vincer makes references to his declaration but failed to file that declaration with the Court. Vincer’s declaration is necessary for the resolution of these Motions. According to the Motions, the declaration contains statements relating to Vincer’s understanding of his alleged attorney-client relationship with Kinaga, which are essential to determine whether the documents at issue are subject to the attorney-client privilege.

As such, these Motions are CONTINUED to July 30, 2021 at 8:30 a.m., and Vincer is ordered to file his declaration in support of the Motions on or before July 20, 2021. Any objections to Vincer’s declaration are to be filed by July 23, 2021.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 16th day of July 2021

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

'


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Notorious Holdings LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Rosenthal, Nicholas