1. MANFREDI v. LAKELAND VILLAGE OWNERS ASSN., ET AL., 25CV1279
Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum
On February 27, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1,
defendants Lakeland Village Owners Association (“LVOA”), Gary Cerio, J. Michael
Benson, Allen Gribnau, Carol McInnes, Ron Armijo, Bonnie Boswell, Michael Johnston,
Felix Wannenmacher, The Helsing Group, and Andrew Hay (collectively, “defendants”)
filed a motion to quash plaintiffs Alberto Manfredi’s, Melissa Manfredi’s, Paul
O’Donnell’s, and Abhijit Indap’s (collectively, “plaintiffs”) subpoena duces tecum
directed to non-party Baydaline & Jacobsen LLP (“Baydaline”), which serves as general
counsel for defendant LVOA. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2,
defendants also request the court to award attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing
the instant motion in the total amount of $5,757.50 on the grounds that plaintiffs’
subpoena was oppressive and issued without substantial justification. Defense counsel
declares that, on February 25, 2026, her office attempted to meet and confer with
plaintiffs via telephone but received no response.1 (Strimling Decl., ¶ 3.) On April 10, 2026, plaintiffs filed a timely opposition. On April 17, 2026, defendants
filed a timely reply. Also on April 17, 2026, plaintiffs filed an objection to defendants’
reply brief on the grounds that it improperly raises two new arguments for the first
time.
1. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendants’ Reply Brief
Plaintiffs object to the following arguments in defendants’ reply brief: (1) that
plaintiffs should have filed a motion to compel further responses rather than issuing the
subpoena at issue; and (2) that the subpoena lacks temporal proximity because it
reaches back to 2019 while plaintiffs’ complaint alleges wrongdoing beginning in late
2022.
1 The court notes there is no meet and confer requirement before filing a motion to
quash under Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1.
LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR APRIL 24, 2026
The court overrules plaintiffs’ objection. Neither of these arguments are new
material raised for the first time in defendants’ reply brief. The first issue rebuts
plaintiffs’ opposition argument that defendants’ discovery responses were insufficient.
The second issue, regarding temporal proximity, was raised in defendants’ opening
brief, albeit defendants did not specifically note the years 2019 or 2022. Defendants’
opening brief challenges the subpoena, in part, on the grounds that it is overbroad and
unduly burdensome, as it seeks categories of documents “spanning multiple years.”
(Mtn. at 8:13.) Therefore, plaintiffs were put on notice that defendants were challenging
the subpoena, in part, based on temporal proximity.
2. Legal Principles
“If a subpoena requires ... the production of books, documents, electronically stored
information, or other things ... at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion
reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b) [including a party to the
action], ... 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