DELIA MERCEDES CARDONA, et al. vs K3 HOLDINGS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

rule 3.350(b)-(c); Super. Ct. LA County, Local Rules, rule 3.3(g)(2).)

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant opines that Plaintiff's two cases are interrelated. Specifically, in this action, Plaintiff's claims, focusing on alleged privacy invasion, arise from Plaintiff's tenancy at 1521 Wilcox Ave, Unit 204, Los Angeles. In Plaintiff's subsequent case, emphasizing habitability and harassment allegations, Plaintiff addresses Defendant's subsequent actions at the same property, allegedly done in retaliation for filing the earlier case. "Actions pending before the same court that involve a common question of law or fact may be ordered consolidated in part or for all purposes." (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cnty. of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 317, 354.)

Here, it is clear that the cases allege common questions of law and fact, concerning Plaintiff's tenancy and Defendant's related conduct. For instance, the Complaint in case number 24STCV20932, at page 2, line 27, expressly references this case filed on July 30, 2024.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court deems the cases related into this Department, and orders that the Motion to Consolidate is granted.

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling

DELIA MERCEDES CARDONA, et al. vs K3 HOLDINGS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. | September 4, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA TO FARMERS GROUP, INC. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA TO COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA TO MYNHD, INC. DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA TO WILSHIRE ESCROW COMPANY.

RULING: All four Motions to Quash as to all items remaining in dispute are granted. The Court quashes the subpoenas issued to FARMERS GROUP, INC., COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL GREATER LOS ANGELES, INC., MYNHD, INC., and WILSHIRE ESCROW COMPANY and excuses their subpoena compliance as to all items remaining in dispute. The Court will enforce as binding (1) Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Stipulation filed on August 28 and August 31, 2026, and (2) their meeting and conferring, agreements and concessions that have resolved issues, as reported in "Defendants' Supplemental Brief in Support of Their Motions to Quash Plaintiffs' Third-Party Subpoenas" filed that date and Plaintiffs' Opposition filed July 9, 2026.

Additionally, the Court denies Plaintiffs' and Defendants' respective requests for monetary sanctions, by finding substantial justification for some positions that led to a partially successful result for each side. The Court incorporates by reference the Minutes entered on July 31, 2026. Defendant to give notice.

REASONING: The Court had continued the four Motions, per the July 31, 2026 and August 5, 2026 Minute Orders, for counsel to meet and confer, considering that the Oppositions and Replies had proposed greatly narrowed subpoenas, such that informal resolution seemed probable. Although some "fishing expeditions" are permissible in discovery, there are limits, such as to insufficiently identified information, and undue burden of providing information as compared to the value of the information. (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224-225.) "When discovery requests are grossly overbroad on their face, and hence do not appear reasonably related to a legitimate discovery need, a reasonable inference can be drawn of an intent to harass and improperly burden." (Obregon v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 424, 431.) "Mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issue does not suffice" for showing direct relevance as to private information sought in discovery. (Davis v.

Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1017-1020 [directing trial court to grant motion to quash as to discovery request that was not narrowly drawn to enable the court to evaluate the appropriate extent of disclosure]. Cf. Bd. of Registered Nursing v. Superior Court (2021) 59 Cal.App. 5th 1011, 1038 ["defendants have not shown that these broad categories are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, even if these categories do contain some records that would be discoverable, their probative value is vastly outweighed by the privileged and private nature of the other records swept up in the production."].)

Absent showings of direct relevance, compelling need, and unavailability of alternative sources, a trial court only could find that a privacy interest prevails. (Ombudsman Services of No. Cal. v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1251, disapproved on other grounds by Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 557.) Financial discovery sometimes has been found relevant as to alter ego allegations. (E.g., Rawnsley v. Superior Court (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 86, 91 [party alleging alter ego theories was entitled to access defendants' financial records where there was a lack of alternatives].)

Courts have limited discretion with regard to sensitive commercial information over objections thereto. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1138, 1141 (court abused discretion in requiring responses that may contain sensitive commercial information, without first reviewing them in camera to ascertain relevance, and whether sensitive matter should be redacted].)

Here, Plaintiffs' broadly worded subpoenas request documents going well beyond the typical habitability allegations contained in the Complaint and adding a factual theory of Defendants' preconceived business strategy to force tenants out. (Complaint, P. 34; Opposition, 3:10.) The alleged claims require no allegation and proof of Defendants' preconceived intent. For instance, the elements of Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability are: 1) Materially defective condition affecting habitability; 2) defective condition was unknown to the tenant at time of occupancy; 3) effect on habitability of the defective condition was not apparent on reasonable inspection; 4) notice given to landlord within a reasonable time after the tenant discovered, or should have discovered, breach; and 5) damages. (E.g., Quevedo v.

Braga (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 7-8, overruled on other grounds by Knight v. Hallsthammar (1981) 29 Cal.3d 46, 53, 55.) As another example, the elements of Retaliatory Eviction are: 1) Lessor acts to, or threatens to, bring an action to evict the tenant; and 2) because the tenant exercised a cognizable right, including complaining to an appropriate agency regarding the tenantability of a dwelling exercising any right under the chapter. (Feldman v. 1100 Park Lane Associates (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1493; Civ.

Code, Sec. 1942.5, subds. (a), (c).)

Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to prove reasonable notice to Defendants based upon preacquisition knowledge of defective conditions. (Opposition, 3:9.) But the above-referenced case law addresses notice after the tenant discovered or should have discovered breach. In many other cases that have been before this Court, tenants and government citations provided such post-acquisition knowledge of defective conditions. This case is the first encountered in this Court where complainants seek lessors' property purchase records to show preacquisition notice. Assuming that type of proof relates to a material claim element, Plaintiffs have not shown knowledge of the requested content in order to show that each item of subpoenaed information would be relevant to the issues being pursued.

In summary, the subpoenas involve unacceptably broad "fishing expeditions" for unknown information that excessively intrudes upon corporate financial privacy and sensitive commercial information, without sufficient justification for the unusually extensive efforts involved were full subpoena compliance to be required. Additionally, a party to a stipulation is conclusively estopped from taking a position contrary to the stipulation, in the same or related litigation. (Palmer v. City of Oakland (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 39, 44.)

Courts may accept representations of attorneys as being the equivalent of a binding stipulation. (Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 683; Fassberg Constr. Co. v. Hous. Auth. of City of Los Angeles (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 720, 752.) "Whenever a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it." (Padron v.

Osoy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 677, 691; Evid. Code Sec. 623.) Therefore, the Court will quash all four subpoenas, but enforce the meet-and-confer agreements, resolutions and concessions, as expressed in the above-referenced filings, and deny sanctions requests considering substantial justification for some positions of each side.

Case Number: 26STCV04081 Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Dept: 311 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling 26STCV04081 SAMANTHA NUSSBAUM, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. vs CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, et al. | September 4, 2026 8:30