Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance of Production in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Eden Garden Center, LLC (“EGC”) and Raj Sharma’s (“Sharma”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel Defendant Town and Country West, LLC’s (“Defendant”) compliance with further responses to request for production (set one) is ruled upon as follows.

This is action arises from the purported breach of a commercial lease. Plaintiffs allege that in September 2015 they entered into a lease with co-defendant Town and Country West GP ("T&C GP"). Pursuant to the lease, T&C GP agreed that if it sold the property within the lease term, it must pay 10% of the profits from the sales proceed to Plaintiff. (Complaint, ¶ 12.) To improve the leased property, Plaintiff spent approximately $500,000 purchasing and installing personal property items and fixtures. (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Under the terms of the lease, Plaintiff retained ownership over personal property and fixtures placed at the property. (Id.)

In May 2018, Defendant acquired the Property from T&C GP. Plaintiff alleges that T&C GP did not pay 10% of the sales proceeds as required by the lease. Defendant thereafter terminated the lease by locking Plaintiff out of the leased property. (Complaint, ¶¶ 14-17.) Defendant also prevented Plaintiff from recovering the $500,000. (Complaint, ¶ 18.)

Janak K. Mehtani (“Mehtani”) and T&C GP have filed an amended cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. In their cross-complaint, Mehtani and T&C GP assert contract and tort causes of action arising out of two agreements. Mehtani alleges that he and Sharma entered into a joint venture agreement concerning the purchase of real property in Elk Grove that was up for foreclosure sale. Mehtani alleges that Sharma breached the joint venture agreement because Sharma failed to execute the operating agreement for the "Shasta Avenue Development, LLC", and Sharma continues to have a sole ownership in the Elk Grove property. T&C GP alleges that EGC breached its lease agreement by failing to pay rent. It also alleges that Plaintiffs negligently and/or intentionally caused substantial damage to the premises.

Trial is scheduled for November 12, 2024.

Plaintiffs now move to compel Defendant’s compliance with its responses to RFP Nos. 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50-59. As an initial matter, the Court observes that Plaintiffs’ notice of motion cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 as the grounds for moving to compel compliance. Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300 concerns a motion to compel further

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance of Production in Department 54

responses to interrogatories. Nonetheless, in its memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiff cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(a), which is the proper statutory authority to compel compliance with a response.

Plaintiffs have agreed to enter into a stipulated protective order regarding financial privacy, but Defendant has not yet agreed.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121.)

RFP Nos. 6 and 8

In response to Plaintiffs’ request for production Nos. 6 and 8, Defendant stated:

ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6, [8]: Objection. This request is vague and overbroad and violates privacy rights including financial privacy.

SUPPLEMENTAL [AMENDED] RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6, [8]: Without waiving the prior objections, responding party will comply in part providing documents from escrow in the transfer from Town and Country GP to Town to Country West LLC.

Plaintiffs explain that while Defendant agreed to produce “documents”, in the plural, Defendants only produced one documents – an unsigned joint supplemental escrow instruction. Plaintiffs explain that “[e]scrow contains many documents, including, but not limited to, original escrow instructions, statements, financial records, and closing documents. T&C did not produce more than one documents and so their production violates their compliance statement.” (Motion, 3:15- 17; Declaration of Paul John B. Badum (“Badum Decl.”), Ex. N [Defendant’s supplemental response and produced documents].)

According to Defendant, it produced the following documents in the supplemental response:

· Settlement Statement from Orange Coast Title Company of Northern California, Title Officer Laurie Hodgkins for 2974 Fulton Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821 which identifies both the purchase price of $13,000,000 and method of payment (loans, deposit, etc.); · Supplemental escrow instructions; · Property Tax Information upon transfer of ownership; · Preliminary Change of Ownership Form.

(Responsive Separate Statement, 2:23-28.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance of Production in Department 54

It further states “[i]n consideration of the responding party’s privacy rights that were not being waived, Responding Party has made a good faith effort to provide Propounding Party the requisite information (purchase price, loan assumption and balance, etc.) from a non-participant to the agreement between Propounding Party and Co-Defendant Town and Country West GP.” (Responsive Separate Statement, 3:1-4.)

It appears that Defendant’s main concern is its privacy rights. The Court concludes that a stipulated confidentiality protective order will sufficiently address Defendant’s concerns.

Accordingly, the motion to compel compliance is GRANTED.

It is unclear whether Defendant has withheld any documents pursuant to its right of privacy. To the extent Defendant has withheld any documents pursuant to its right of privacy, Defendant shall produce those documents subject to the stipulated confidentiality protective order.

The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding a stipulated protective order and submit a proposed order to the Court by no later than August 15, 2023. Upon the Court’s entry of the stipulated protective order, Defendant shall produce any documents (if any) it has withheld based on its right to privacy within 30 days of the Court’s entry of the stipulated protective order. If Defendant is not withholding any documents based on its right to privacy, it shall confirm, in writing and under oath, that is not withholding any documents based on its right to privacy within 30 days of the Court’s entry of the stipulated protective order.

RFP Nos. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50-59

In response to Plaintiffs’ request for production Nos. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50-59, Defendant stated:

ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST Nos. 11, [13, 15, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50-59]: Objection. This request is vague and overbroad and violates privacy rights including financial privacy. Without waiving this objection, Responding Party will comply with this request in part and produce the email exchange between Raj Sharma and Wagar Khan enclosed herewith.

SUPPLEMENTAL [AMENDED] Nos. 11, [13, 15, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50-59: Without waiving the prior objections, responding party will comply in part and produce the final settlement agreement regarding the foreclosure of mechanic’s lien filed by Design Build, Inc.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to comply with its response as it only produced an unsigned promissory note attendant to the final settlement agreement. Defendant did not produce

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00291438-CU-BC-GDS: Eden Gardens Center, LLC vs. Janak K. Mehtani 08/01/2023 Hearing on Motion to Compel Compliance of Production in Department 54

the fully signed settlement agreement.

Defendant responds “[b]y the terms of the settlement agreement, the promissory note was to be signed six months after the settlement agreement was executed and therefore was not included in the agreement.”

Defendant’s argument misses the mark. Defendant agreed to produce the final settlement agreement. Defendant only produced the unsigned promissory note. Whether the promissory note was executed after the settlement agreement is not relevant. Plaintiff is seeking production of the final settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the motion to compel compliance is GRANTED.

Defendant shall produce the final settlement agreement by no later than August 15, 2023.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel Nilesh Choudhary of the Choudhary Law Office pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030(a). These provisions do not by themselves authorize the Court to impose discovery sanctions. Instead, the authority must come from another provision of the Discovery Act. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 466, petition for review granted on January 25, 2023.)

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.020 is DENIED. This section applies when a party wholly fails to meet and confer. Here, Mr. Choudhary did not wholly fail to meet and confer.

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.050(a) is DENIED.

Plaintiffs did not request monetary sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.320(b).

Plaintiffs’ request for monetary sanctions due to Defendant’s failure to serve the exhibits to the declaration is DENIED.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)