Pham v. Pham
Pham v. Pham
2023 WL 7403588 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2023)
August 11, 2023
Klau, Daniel J., Judge
Summary
The court granted the motion to quash in part and denied in part for the subpoena duces tecum served on third-party Willy Pham. The court limited the time frame for some of the document requests to the period January 1, 2018 to the present, in order to reduce the burden on Willy Pham of responding to the Electronically Stored Information. Willy Pham must provide all responsive documents to the Wife's counsel not later than 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2023.
Additional Decisions
Note: This is an unpublished decision. Check your jurisdiction’s rules about citing unpublished decisions before citing this case to a court.
EMILIA PHAM
v.
CYRIL PHAM
v.
CYRIL PHAM
DOCKET NO. HHD-FA20-6134979-S
Superior Court of Connecticut, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD. AT HARTFORD
August 11, 2023
Klau, Daniel J., Judge
RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH AND OBJECTION (##211, 213)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK COURT RULES BEFORE CITING.
*1 Third-party Willy Pham moves to quash a subpoena duces tecum the plaintiff (Wife) served on him in anticipation of an October 2023 trial in this hotly contested divorce case. Willy Pham is the plaintiff's father-in-law. He is also the sole member of two aviation-related limited liability companies.
Attachment A to the subpoena includes twenty-three document requests. Willy Pham argues that the requests are oppressive and burdensome and beyond the scope of permissible discovery.[1] For the following reasons, the motion to quash is granted in part and denied in part.
I
BACKGROUND
The parties married in September 2006. The Wife commenced this dissolution action in November 2020. The Husband is a pilot and owns Airgo Aviation LLC. His May 10, 2023 financial affidavit[2] states weekly gross income from the business of $342; it lists no other income. The same affidavit shows weekly expenses of $1687. The affidavit also lists a debt of $214,000, which the Husband alleges the parties jointly owe to Willy Pham for “(non-dissolution) attorneys fees and related expenses, mortgage payments, and other household/family expenses.” Finally, the affidavit states that Airgo Aviation, LLC owes $17,103 (as of 5/1/23) to Tango Lima Aviation, which Willy Pham owns.
The Wife wonders how the Husband can pay weekly expenses of $1687 on weekly income of $342. She suspects that Willy Pham, personally, through his businesses or both, is a source of undisclosed income to the defendant (Husband). Her subpoena and associated document requests seek, inter alia, documents reflecting loans, gifts and other payments that Willy Pham has made to the Husband, directly or indirectly through the Husband's company or other third parties. Some of the requests seek documents dating back to January 1, 2006; other requests are limited to the period from January 1, 2018 to the present.
Willy Pham timely filed a motion to quash pursuant to Practice Book §§ 13-5, 13-28 and General Statutes § 52-148e. The Wife timely filed an objection. As noted, Willy Pham contends that the discovery requests are oppressive and burdensome. The Wife disagrees and argues that they are narrowly tailored and reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
A noted jurist once remarked that “[g]eneral propositions do not decide concrete cases.” Lochner v New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). The difficulty here is not articulating the principles of law applicable to discovery requests; the difficulty is in applying those principles. The court can only exercise its reasoned judgment and discretion when applying the discovery rules to the specific requests at issue here.
II
DISCUSSION
A
Discovery requests one through six seek documents from January 1, 2006, i.e., nine months before the parties were married, to the present. They seek documents concerning, inter alia, any loans, gifts, payments of debts and expenses by Willy Pham to, or on behalf of, the Husband. During oral argument, the Wife's counsel expressed his intent to determine whether Willy Pham has made regular and consistent monetary contributions to the Husband, which would be relevant to both child support and alimony orders.
*2 The court agrees that such contributions, if made more recently, would be relevant to determining the Husband's present, actual income. The court does not agree that evidence of contributions dating back to 2006 is even arguably relevant to the Husband's current income. Accordingly, the court shall limit the time frame for requests one through six to the period January 1, 2018 to the present.
B
Willy Pham objected to the discovery requests generally on the grounds that they were oppressive and burdensome. The court's ruling concerning the time frame of the objections substantially reduces the burden on Willy Pham of responding. During oral argument, the court considered other objections to specific requests. The court issues the following rulings:
1. As to requests nos. 1-3, 6: The motion to quash is DENIED as to these requests.
2. As to requests no. 4: The motion to quash is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Willy Pham shall produce the requested documents solely to the extent that they reflect specific monetary payments of $500 or greater.
3. As to request no. 5: The Wife withdrew this request.
4. As to requests nos. 7-14: The motion to quash is DENIED as to these requests.
5. As to request no. 15: The motion to quash is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The time frame for the requested documents shall be January 1, 2018 to the present.
6. As to request nos. 16-20: The motion to quash is DENIED.
7. As to request no. 21: The motion to quash is GRANTED.
8. As to request nos. 22-23: The motion to quash is DENIED.
Subject to the foregoing rulings, Willy Pham shall provide all responsive documents to the Wife's counsel not later than 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2023. The plaintiff shall re-notice the deposition for a date thereafter. All documents produced shall be used solely for the purpose of this litigation and shall be disclosed only to the parties, their counsel and law firm staff, and disclosed expert witnesses.
SO ORDERED.