Post by darkstar on Sept 23, 2005 13:02:36 GMT
FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK
BY ELIZABETH TORRES, DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No. BC289730
Complaint filed 2/4/03
Consolidated with
Case No. BC294495
Complaint filed 4/23/03
Assigned to Hon. Gregory Alarcon
NOTICE OF RULING
(Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon, Dept 36)
JOHN DENSMORE, etc..
Plaintiff,
Vs.
RAYMOND MANAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual’ DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER, as individuals and on behalf of several California partnerships,
Cross-Complaints,
v.
JOHN DENSMORE, an individual,
Cross-Defendant.
COLUMBUS COURSON, PEARL M. COURSON, GEORGE MORRISON, CLARA MORRISON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RAYMOND MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
Defendants.
On Thursday, September 15, 2005, the Court heard Defendants Raymond Manzarek, Robert Krieger and Doors Touring, Inc. and Third Party Alan Goldman’s Notice of Motion and Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum of Alan Goldman. Martin D. Singer, Esq., and Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq., of Lavely & Singer, P.C., appeared on behalf of Movants. S. Jerome Mandel, Esq., of Mandel, Norwood & Grant, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff John Densmore and Plaintiffs Columbus Courson and Pearl M. Courson. Jeffery Forer, Esq., of Hinojosa and Wallet, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs George Morrison and Clara Morrison.
The Court issued a Tentative Ruling, a copy of which is attached. After argument by all sides, the Court ADOPTED the Tentative Ruling.
Dated: September 16, 2005
LAVELY & SINGER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MARTIN D. SINGER
WILLIAM J. BRIGGS, II
PAUL KARL LUKACS
By: Paul Karl Lukas
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainants
ROBERT KRIEGER and
RAYMOND MANZAREK and
Defendants IAN ASTBURY and
DOORS TOURING, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NO. BC 289730
TENTATIVE DECISION ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF ALAN GOLDMAN
Hearing Date: September 7, 2005
Moving Party: Defendant Cross-Complainants
RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC., and Third-Party ALAN GOLDMAN
JOHN DENMORE, Etc.
v.
RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual;
ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual;
IAN ASTBURY, an individual;
DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 21, 2005, this Court entered a Statement Of Decision (SOD) that ordered Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger to serve an accounting. The Court scheduled a hearing with regard to the accounting to be held on September 16, 2005. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiff Densmore caused the subpoena to be served on third party Goldman. In addition to requiring that Goldman appear, which he already planned to do, the Subpoena requires that Goldman bring 13 category of documents. Defendants filed this motion to quash or limit the document requests.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
CCP 1981.1 provides that the court may quash a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, in its entirety or partially. The Court may make any order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands or unreasonable violations of a witness’ right of privacy.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to bring documents previously provided. The deposition of Goldman demanded the production of documents in 72 different categories. Goldman and Defendants invited counsel to copy numerous document and plaintiffs did so. This subpoena would require Goldman to once again search for, identify and produce thousands of pages previously made available to Plaintiffs.
Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to produce documents created after the State Of Decision. The Statement Of Decision required Defendants to serve an accounting with regard to contents performed under the name “Doors of the 21st Century” (D21C) and defendants ceased use of that name as of July 22, 2005, the documents should be limited to that time period.
Defendants argue that the Subpoena reaches entities other than defendants. The defendants are Krieger and Manzarek. Doors Touring, Inc., was never a defendant and Astbury was fully exonerated after trial on the merits. Several of the requests seek documents regarding entities other than Defendants, Doors Touring, Inc. or Diamond Night Productions, LLC. (For example 5, 6, 7, 8 any business entity which Manzarek or Krieger has interest; 11 & 13 All writings prepared at any time to reflect assets or depict earnings of D21C. This violates these other entities’ privacy and due process rights.
Finally, Defendants contend that the Subpoena inappropriately seeks Document regarding net worth and assets. The Court ordered that “profits” be divested. (SOD pp. 41-42). This is inappropriate unless a party is seeking the information for punitive damages. Cal. Civil Code. 3295.
Plaintiffs state that the subpoena does not require anything different from what the Court ordered (Supporting documentation for all profits earned from and after June 30, 2004 and all profits earned prior to April 18, 2003 see SOD p. 42:8-43:3)
The documents previously produced are hardly sufficient and do not account for profits after July 2004. Plaintiff have no objection to receiving a summary of previously produced documents as long as there is back-up documentation.
Plaintiffs dispute Defendants’ assertion that the Subpoena must be limited to documents prior to July 22, 2005. Defendants rely only on the Mr Goldman’s declaration that they ceased to use the name on July 22. Defendants continued to derive profits from use of that name even after ceasing to use the name since previous promotion for post July 22 concerts utilized the name.
Plaintiffs state that it is clear that Defendants must produce documents reflecting benefits that many be under any entity owned by Defendants. The document requests limit these documents to revenues that were generated by a band including Defendants. Futhermore, Defendants must produce document regarding assets as those will indicate whether any other entity should be added as debtor for purposes of ensuring, pursuant to the SOD, that the Doors name is no longer used. Plaintiffs have no interest in net worth and do not object if financial statements are redacted for “the liabilities that otherwise would be disclosed in normal course of preparation of such a document.”
The Court ordered the disgorgement of any profits that were made through the use of the names. All of the document requests seek information relevant and necessary to the determination of those figures. Defendants many have profited from use of the name even if the name ceased to be used after July 22. The requests are limited to revenues earned from a band including these Defendants. Plaintiffs do not object to Goldman summarizing or indicating which documents have already been produced, provided that there is back-up of those documents. Only Document request Number 11 seeks net worth of D21C. This request should seek only the assets or earnings statement.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant Cross-Complainants RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC. and third-party Alan Goldman’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.
Document Request No. 11 should redact the request for “net worth.”
Dated this 15th day of September 2005
Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
JOHN A CLARKE, CLERK
BY ELIZABETH TORRES, DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Case No. BC289730
Complaint filed 2/4/03
Consolidated with
Case No. BC294495
Complaint filed 4/23/03
Assigned to Hon. Gregory Alarcon
NOTICE OF RULING
(Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon, Dept 36)
JOHN DENSMORE, etc..
Plaintiff,
Vs.
RAYMOND MANAREK, an individual; ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual; IAN ASTBURY, an individual’ DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER, as individuals and on behalf of several California partnerships,
Cross-Complaints,
v.
JOHN DENSMORE, an individual,
Cross-Defendant.
COLUMBUS COURSON, PEARL M. COURSON, GEORGE MORRISON, CLARA MORRISON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
RAYMOND MANZAREK, ROBERT KRIEGER, IAN ASTBURY, DOES 1 through 500, inclusive,
Defendants.
On Thursday, September 15, 2005, the Court heard Defendants Raymond Manzarek, Robert Krieger and Doors Touring, Inc. and Third Party Alan Goldman’s Notice of Motion and Motion To Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum of Alan Goldman. Martin D. Singer, Esq., and Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq., of Lavely & Singer, P.C., appeared on behalf of Movants. S. Jerome Mandel, Esq., of Mandel, Norwood & Grant, appeared on behalf of Plaintiff John Densmore and Plaintiffs Columbus Courson and Pearl M. Courson. Jeffery Forer, Esq., of Hinojosa and Wallet, appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs George Morrison and Clara Morrison.
The Court issued a Tentative Ruling, a copy of which is attached. After argument by all sides, the Court ADOPTED the Tentative Ruling.
Dated: September 16, 2005
LAVELY & SINGER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MARTIN D. SINGER
WILLIAM J. BRIGGS, II
PAUL KARL LUKACS
By: Paul Karl Lukas
Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainants
ROBERT KRIEGER and
RAYMOND MANZAREK and
Defendants IAN ASTBURY and
DOORS TOURING, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NO. BC 289730
TENTATIVE DECISION ON MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM OF ALAN GOLDMAN
Hearing Date: September 7, 2005
Moving Party: Defendant Cross-Complainants
RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC., and Third-Party ALAN GOLDMAN
JOHN DENMORE, Etc.
v.
RAYMOND MANZAREK, an individual;
ROBERT KRIEGER, an individual;
IAN ASTBURY, an individual;
DOORS TOURING, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
On July 21, 2005, this Court entered a Statement Of Decision (SOD) that ordered Raymond Manzarek and Robert Krieger to serve an accounting. The Court scheduled a hearing with regard to the accounting to be held on September 16, 2005. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiff Densmore caused the subpoena to be served on third party Goldman. In addition to requiring that Goldman appear, which he already planned to do, the Subpoena requires that Goldman bring 13 category of documents. Defendants filed this motion to quash or limit the document requests.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
CCP 1981.1 provides that the court may quash a subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness or the production of documents, in its entirety or partially. The Court may make any order to protect the parties from unreasonable or oppressive demands or unreasonable violations of a witness’ right of privacy.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to bring documents previously provided. The deposition of Goldman demanded the production of documents in 72 different categories. Goldman and Defendants invited counsel to copy numerous document and plaintiffs did so. This subpoena would require Goldman to once again search for, identify and produce thousands of pages previously made available to Plaintiffs.
Defendants contend that Goldman should not have to produce documents created after the State Of Decision. The Statement Of Decision required Defendants to serve an accounting with regard to contents performed under the name “Doors of the 21st Century” (D21C) and defendants ceased use of that name as of July 22, 2005, the documents should be limited to that time period.
Defendants argue that the Subpoena reaches entities other than defendants. The defendants are Krieger and Manzarek. Doors Touring, Inc., was never a defendant and Astbury was fully exonerated after trial on the merits. Several of the requests seek documents regarding entities other than Defendants, Doors Touring, Inc. or Diamond Night Productions, LLC. (For example 5, 6, 7, 8 any business entity which Manzarek or Krieger has interest; 11 & 13 All writings prepared at any time to reflect assets or depict earnings of D21C. This violates these other entities’ privacy and due process rights.
Finally, Defendants contend that the Subpoena inappropriately seeks Document regarding net worth and assets. The Court ordered that “profits” be divested. (SOD pp. 41-42). This is inappropriate unless a party is seeking the information for punitive damages. Cal. Civil Code. 3295.
Plaintiffs state that the subpoena does not require anything different from what the Court ordered (Supporting documentation for all profits earned from and after June 30, 2004 and all profits earned prior to April 18, 2003 see SOD p. 42:8-43:3)
The documents previously produced are hardly sufficient and do not account for profits after July 2004. Plaintiff have no objection to receiving a summary of previously produced documents as long as there is back-up documentation.
Plaintiffs dispute Defendants’ assertion that the Subpoena must be limited to documents prior to July 22, 2005. Defendants rely only on the Mr Goldman’s declaration that they ceased to use the name on July 22. Defendants continued to derive profits from use of that name even after ceasing to use the name since previous promotion for post July 22 concerts utilized the name.
Plaintiffs state that it is clear that Defendants must produce documents reflecting benefits that many be under any entity owned by Defendants. The document requests limit these documents to revenues that were generated by a band including Defendants. Futhermore, Defendants must produce document regarding assets as those will indicate whether any other entity should be added as debtor for purposes of ensuring, pursuant to the SOD, that the Doors name is no longer used. Plaintiffs have no interest in net worth and do not object if financial statements are redacted for “the liabilities that otherwise would be disclosed in normal course of preparation of such a document.”
The Court ordered the disgorgement of any profits that were made through the use of the names. All of the document requests seek information relevant and necessary to the determination of those figures. Defendants many have profited from use of the name even if the name ceased to be used after July 22. The requests are limited to revenues earned from a band including these Defendants. Plaintiffs do not object to Goldman summarizing or indicating which documents have already been produced, provided that there is back-up of those documents. Only Document request Number 11 seeks net worth of D21C. This request should seek only the assets or earnings statement.
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant Cross-Complainants RAYMOND MANZAREK and ROBERT KRIEGER and IAN ASTBURY and DOORS TOURING, INC. and third-party Alan Goldman’s Motion to Quash Subpoena is DENIED.
Document Request No. 11 should redact the request for “net worth.”
Dated this 15th day of September 2005
Hon. Gregory W. Alarcon
Superior Court Judge