Tentative Ruling: Pootie Pie Properties, LLC, and Michael Hellman v. Cameron Colvin, et al.
Case Number
22CV03421
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 10/21/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
1. Motion of Judgment Debtors to Quash or Modify Post-Judgment Deposition Subpoena; 2. Hearing on Objections to Post-Judgment Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiffs and Judgment Creditors Pootie Pie Properties, LLC, and Michael Hellman: Michael G. Flanagan, DELawGroup
For Defendants and Judgment Debtors Cameron Colvin, Ricky Lyons, and Camco Champion AQD, LLC: Paul A. Beck
RULING
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of judgment debtors Cameron Colvin, Ricky Lyons, and Camco Champion AQD, LLC, to quash the business records subpoena directed to GoDaddy.Com, LLC, is granted. The subpoena is quashed and no production of documents is to be made pursuant to the subpoena. The objections filed by judgment debtors are in all other respects moot.
Background
On September 29, 2023, the Court entered its judgment in favor of plaintiffs and judgment creditors Pootie Pie Properties, LLC, and Michael Hellman and against defendants and judgment debtors Cameron Colvin, Ricky Lyons, and Camco Champion AQD, LLC. On November 17, 2023, the Court entered its amended judgment in the amount, inclusive of attorney fees and costs, of $2,331,064.73.
Judgment creditors issued a deposition subpoena for production of business records, dated August 1, 2026, to deponent GoDaddy.com, LLC. (Beck decl. re Objections, ¶ 3 & exhibit 1 [the Subpoena].) The Subpoena states in its attached description of records to be produced that “[t]hese records are requested in connection with post-judgment enforcement proceedings” in this matter. (Subpoena, p. 4.) The Subpoena requests nine categories of documents with respect to each of four domain names. (Subpoena, pp. 4-9.)
On August 31, 2026, judgment debtors filed objections to the Subpoena with the Court. (Note: There are two docket entries for these objections, one filed at 5:14 p.m. and one filed at 5:53 p.m. There is no obvious difference in these documents and none has been pointed out to the Court. The Court assumes that the document filed at 5:53 p.m., to whatever extent it may be different from the earlier document, is the operative objection.)
On September 1, 2026, the Court on its own motion set a hearing on the objections for September 23, 2026, treating the objections as moving papers, and providing deadlines for a response and a reply. The Court further stayed the entire matter pending an agreement between the litigants or Court order. Also on September 1, judgment debtors filed and served a notice of hearing and of the Court’s orders.
On September 2, 2026, judgment debtors filed their motion to quash or to modify the Subpoena, also noticed for hearing on September 23.
On September 8, 2026, judgment creditors filed their opposition to the motion to quash. In connection with the opposition, judgment creditors requested that the Court take judicial notice of its exhibits 8 through 11.
On September 16, 2026, judgment debtors filed their reply to the opposition to the motion to quash and objections to judgment creditors’ request for judicial notice.
On September 21, 2026, the Court entered its order, on the stipulation of the parties, continuing the September 23 hearing to October 21.
On October 14, 2026, judgment debtors filed a motion for a protective order and for limited stay. The hearing is noticed for January 6, 2027.
Analysis
(1) Motion to Quash/ Objections to Subpoena
For purposes of this discussion, the Court treats the motions and objections together as seeking to quash or modify the Subpoena.
Judgment debtors discuss the subpoena in the context of Code of Civil Procedure sections 1985.3, 1987.1, 1987.2, and 2023.030. (Motion, at pp. 5-14.) In opposition, judgment creditor responds, among other things, with a citation to SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741 (SCC). SCC is dispositive of the motion and objections.
In SCC, the judgment creditor propounded requests for production of documents to the judgment debtor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.030 and later brought a motion to compel responses to particular requests. (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 744–745.) The judgment debtor objected to those requests, arguing that the requests sought documents of third parties, the requests sought documents protected by the right of privacy, the requests were vague and ambiguous, and the requests were burdensome and unduly expansive. (Id. at pp. 746-747.) The trial Court granted the motion to compel as to five requests and otherwise denied the motion. (Id. at p. 747.)
On appeal in SCC, the Court first determined that it had appellate jurisdiction by treating the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate. (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 750.) The SCC Court then determined that the trial Court had authority to compel the judgment debtor to produce documents relating to third parties:
“A judgment creditor may conduct discovery directly against the judgment debtor by means of a judgment debtor examination (§ 708.110), written interrogatories (§ 708.020), and requests for production of documents (§ 708.030). Section 708.030, subdivision (a) provides: ‘The judgment creditor may demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made in the manner provided in [the Civil Discovery Act], if the demand requests information to aid in enforcement of the money judgment. The judgment debtor shall respond and comply with the demand in the manner and within the time provided by [the Civil Discovery Act].’ ” (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 751–752.)
In making this determination, however, the SCC Court distinguished between post-judgment discovery from the judgment debtor and post-judgment discovery from third parties:
“In contrast to discovery directed to the judgment debtor, discovery directed to a third party is limited to an appearance before the Court or a referee by the third party to answer questions about property or debt in which the judgment debtor has an interest. (§ 708.120.) The first sentence of section 708.120, subdivision (a) reads: ‘Upon ex parte application by a judgment creditor who has a money judgment and proof by the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the proper Court that a third person has possession or control of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250), the Court shall make an order directing the third person to appear before the Court, or before a referee appointed by the Court, at a time and place specified in the order, to answer concerning such property or debt.’ ” (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 752.)
“[The judgment debtor] argues such a reading of section 708.030 permits a judgment creditor to obtain indirectly from the judgment debtor documents which it cannot obtain directly from the third party and ‘renders Section 708.120’s requirements meaningless.’ There is, however, a difference between discovery about a third party and discovery from a third party. Documents that are in the possession, custody, or control of the judgment debtor are not third party documents: they are judgment debtor documents, and discovery aimed to obtain them is not third party discovery. Section 708.030 does not permit the judgment creditor to obtain documents that are not in the possession, custody, or control of the judgment debtor. Nor does section 708.030 permit the judgment creditor to obtain an order compelling a third party to appear before the Court or referee to answer questions about property or debt in which the judgment debtor has an interest. If the judgment creditor wants to discover such information directly from the third party, then the procedures of section 708.120 must be followed.” (SCC, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at pp. 752–753.)
Here, the judgment creditor seeks discovery by way of a business records subpoena directly from the third party. As explained in SCC, in order to do so, the procedures of section 708.120 must be followed.
Section 708.120, as quoted above, is limited to an order to appear before the Court and to testify in certain particulars. The Subpoena is not an order to appear under section 708.120. Instead, it is a business records subpoena under Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.010, subdivision (a)(3), and 2020.410 to produce documents separate and apart from a section 708.120 examination. The business records subpoena does not comply with the procedures set forth in section 708.120 and is not tethered to a 708.120 examination. (See Fox Johns Lazar Pekin & Wexler, APC v. Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1222.) Because there is no authority for a post-judgment subpoena to a third party in the manner of the Subpoena, the motion to quash the Subpoena will be granted on that ground.
Based upon this disposition, it is not necessary for the Court to address, and the Court does not address, the arguments of the parties as to specific aspects of the Subpoena.
(2) Request for Judicial Notice
Based upon the disposition set forth above, the requests for judicial notice are denied as irrelevant to the disposition of this matter. (See Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.)