Country Club Villa Properties v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:25-cv-02006
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Country Club Villa Properties v. Comcast Cable Communications, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi ordered Comcast to produce a narrowed set of profit-related documents tied to its alleged trespass on plaintiff's property.
Property owners who believe a cable or utility company has repeatedly entered and used equipment on their land without permission may find this ruling relevant to what financial information they can seek in discovery under California's trespass damages statute. Companies facing similar discovery demands should note that courts may order narrowed — but not zero — production of profit-related records linked to alleged trespass.
What happened
In Country Club Villa Properties v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, plaintiff Country Club Villa Properties (CCVP) sued Comcast alleging that Comcast trespassed on CCVP's property for several decades by entering the property and using CCVP's electrical equipment to provide services to third parties without CCVP's consent. CCVP served two document requests — Requests for Production (RFPs) 19 and 20 — seeking all documents and communications related to the profits Comcast earned from using CCVP's property and equipment, and from providing services to a nearby location called Fairway Glen. Comcast objected, arguing that its revenues were independently derived from its communications services rather than from the alleged trespass, that the applicable California law on unlawful business practices only allows restitution rather than a profit-based remedy, and that the requests were vastly overbroad and disproportionate to the case's needs.
The court agreed with Comcast on one point: CCVP had not articulated a valid restitution theory under California's Unfair Competition Law, so profit discovery could not be justified on that basis. However, the court found that California Civil Code Section 3334 — which governs damages for wrongful occupation of real property — does allow recovery of the 'benefits obtained' by a trespasser, and that California courts have broadly interpreted this to include profits, costs avoided, and even gross revenue, as long as those benefits are causally linked to the trespass. The court concluded that it could not rule out, on the current record, that CCVP might be able to show that Comcast obtained financial benefits as a result of the alleged trespass, so denying discovery entirely would be premature.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi resolved the dispute by granting CCVP's request in part: rather than ordering Comcast to produce 'all documents' related to its profits broadly, the court ordered Comcast to produce documents sufficient to show the profits it earned — in whole or in part — from using the specific locations on CCVP's property identified in CCVP's complaint or in a relevant interrogatory answer, in connection with providing services to third parties including Fairway Glen. The overbroad scope of the original requests was narrowed to match what is proportional to the needs of the case.
The detailed version
- Country Club Villa Properties v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC · No. 5:25-cv-02006
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 24, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Country Club Villa Properties (CCVP) brought this action against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Comcast) asserting several claims, including trespass and a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business & Professions Code § 17200. CCVP alleges that for several decades, Comcast entered CCVP's property and used CCVP's electrical equipment — located on that property — to provide Comcast's own communications services to third parties, including residents across the street, without CCVP's consent, authorization, or permission.
In discovery, CCVP served two Requests for Production (RFPs): - RFP 19: All documents and communications related to the profits Comcast earned by using CCVP's property to provide services to third parties, including use of CCVP's electrical equipment. - RFP 20: All documents and communications related to the profits Comcast earned from providing services to Fairway Glen.
CCVP argued these requests were relevant to its trespass claim under California Civil Code § 3334 (which measures damages from wrongful occupation of property) and alternatively to a hypothetical 'commission' CCVP could have negotiated for permitting Comcast to use the property.
Comcast's Objections
Comcast raised three objections:
- The 'benefits obtained' provision of California Civil Code § 3334(b)(1) does not apply because Comcast's revenues from communications services are independently derived and not generated by equipment on CCVP's property.
- The UCL permits only restitution, not damages in the form of a 'commission,' citing Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1148 (2003).
- The document requests are grossly disproportionate to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
Court's Analysis
UCL Restitution Theory
The court agreed with Comcast that CCVP had not articulated a valid restitution theory under the UCL. Under California Supreme Court precedent, the UCL does not permit nonrestitutionary disgorgement of profits; recovery is limited to profits representing money given to the defendant or benefits in which the plaintiff has an ownership interest. Because CCVP's 'commission' theory did not fit within that framework, the court declined to order discovery on that basis and shifted its analysis to the trespass claim.
California Civil Code § 3334 — 'Benefits Obtained'
Section 3334 provides that damages for wrongful occupation of real property include the value of use of the property, measured as the greater of (a) the reasonable rental value or (b) the 'benefits obtained by the person wrongfully occupying the property by reason of that wrongful occupation' — unless the wrongful occupation resulted from a mistake of fact, in which case only reasonable rental value applies.
The court noted that at least three California Courts of Appeal have construed 'benefits obtained' broadly to mean 'any financial benefit obtained as a result of the trespass,' including profits directly linked to the wrongful trespass, costs avoided by means of the trespass, and potentially gross revenue (subject to the trespasser presenting evidence of costs that may be offset). The court cited Bailey v. Outdoor Media Group, 155 Cal. App. 4th 778 (2007); Starrh & Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy LLC, 153 Cal. App. 4th 583 (2007); and C&C Props., Inc. v. Shell Pipeline Co., No. 1:14-cv-1889, 2024 WL 2187761 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2024).
The court rejected Comcast's argument that the 'benefits obtained' measure is limited to trespass cases involving illegal dumping or pollution, finding no such limitation in the statutory text. While the court acknowledged that CCVP might ultimately be unable to prove that Comcast's financial benefits were causally linked to the alleged trespass, it found that it could not rule that out on the current record. Accordingly, CCVP was entitled to discovery that might allow it to prove the quantum of the benefit obtained.
Proportionality Under Rule 26(b)(1)
The court agreed with Comcast that the original RFPs — seeking 'all documents' and 'all communications' related to profits from use of unspecified property or equipment not identified in the operative complaint — were overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case. A blanket order to produce 'all documents' responsive to these requests was not warranted.
Ruling
The court ordered Comcast to produce documents sufficient to show the profits it earned, in whole or in part, from using the specific locations or portions of the property identified and described by CCVP in the operative complaint or in a pertinent interrogatory answer, in connection with providing services to third parties including Fairway Glen. This narrowing limits production to what is proportional and relevant to CCVP's trespass claim while still allowing CCVP to pursue its 'benefits obtained' theory under § 3334.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.