Clute – Trust

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR DEPARTMENT CM05 HON. Judge Ebrahim Baytieh

Date: 05/29/2026 Court Room Rules and Notices

# Case Name Tentative 1 Clute - Trust TENTATIVE RULING

Case: Clute – Trust 01463604 Date: 05/29/26

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA (ROA 14)

Respondent Randall R. Clute (“Respondent”) specially appears to move to quash the subpoenas issued by Petitioner Craig C. Clute (“Petitioner”) to Bank of America and Synchrony Bank.

Evidentiary Matters

Respondent’s Evidentiary Objections (ROA 42) 1-4 are sustained.

The court disregards Petitioner’s late-filed declaration (ROA 44). In disregarding the untimely filed declaration, the court relied on its inherent and statutory discretion to control the proceedings to ensure the effective administration of justice as well as the Rules of Court. “First, a trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject late-filed papers. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).).” (Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 252, 262.)

Motion

Respondent first moves to quash the subpoenas on the ground that they are procedurally defective because the name of the deposition officer was not included with its address and phone number.

Discovery is designed to be self-executing. (Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 1431, 1434.) Any discovery issues that can be resolved informally without court intervention should be. (Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 1277, 1293.)

In this case, the omission of the deposition officer’s name was a scrivener’s error that could be, and was, resolved informally. Counsel for Petitioner promptly provided the name of the deposition officer upon request and with sufficient time for Respondent to object to the use of that deposition officer if necessary. Thus, Respondent has not been prejudiced by the procedural defect. Moreover, the issue is moot since the subpoenas were re-issued with the name of the deposition officer.

Respondent next moves to quash the subpoena on the grounds that Petitioner lacks standing to petition for an accounting of a revocable trust.

The California Supreme Court in Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531 (Williams) held that "the way to raise lack of standing is to plead it as an

affirmative defense, and thereafter to bring a motion for summary adjudication or summary judgment, not to resist discovery until a plaintiff proves he or she has standing.” (Id. at p. 558-559.) It is well-settled that to “show the merits of one’s case has never been a threshold requirement for discovery.” (Id. at 558.) The Discovery Act permits “any party” to conduct discovery. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.)

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in Williams, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District recently noted that objections based on lack of standing are properly raised in a dispositive motion, not in a discovery response. (Masimo Corp. v. The Vanderpool Law Firm, Inc. (2024) 101 Cal. App. 5th 902, fn. 7.)

Respondent raised a privacy objection to the subpoenas for the first time in his Reply to this motion. It is also well-settled that points “raised in a reply brief for the first time will not be considered unless good cause is shown for the failure to present them before. [Citations.]” (Balboa Ins. Co. v. Aguirre (1983) 149 Cal. App. 3d 1002, 1010.) The general rule of law and motion practice is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers, which “is based on the same logic applied in the appellate courts, specifically, that ‘[p]oints raised for the first time in a reply brief will ordinarily not be considered because such consideration would deprive the respondent of an opportunity to counter the argument.’ [Citations.]” (Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1537.)

In this case, no good cause is shown for failure to raise this argument in Respondent’s moving papers, and Petitioner has not had an opportunity to reply. Nor is the argument strictly responsive to any argument made for the first time in opposition. The Court therefore declines to consider this argument.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to quash subpoenas is DENIED.

Counsel for Petitioner is ordered to give notice of this ruling.