Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2021-00040202-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 02, 2024

05/03/2024  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Discovery Hearing 37-2021-00040202-CU-BT-CTL THE HEALTH OPTIMIZING INSTITUTE VS AUCLAIR [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Defendant/Cross-Complainant Sharon Janis's motion to compel Plaintiff The Health Optimizing Institute and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Mandala Society Inc. to provide further responses to requests for production (set one) is GRANTED as set forth below.

RFPs 1, 2, 3, and 5 seeks financial documents related to Mandala and HOI. RFP 4 seeks communications between Cheryl Geer and David Scott Harris. The documents are either relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on both the complaints and cross-complaint, and there is good cause for their production.

Mandala and HOI objected on the grounds the requests were overbroad and not relevant. Mandala and HOI argue that their claims against Janis only relate to conduct occurring between 2019 and 2020, whereas the RFPs seek documents through 2023. However, the cross-claims brought on behalf of Mandala against Geer for breach of fiduciary duty are not so temporally limited and allege ongoing mismanagement and self-dealing. Although no similar derivative claims are brought on behalf of HOI against Geer, Janis has asserted an unclean hands defense as to the claims brought against her by HOI. Geer's alleged mismanagement and self-dealing as to HOI is potentially relevant to that defense.

(See Peregrine Funding Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 33 Cal.App.4th 658, 679.) Mandala and HOI also objected to these requests on the ground they were vague and ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and/or contained subparts. Mandala and HOI did not attempt to substantiate these objections in their opposition. (See Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [burden is on opposing party to justify its objections].) Mandala and HOI note that in addition to objecting, they did substantively respond to some of the requests. However, those responses were 'subject to and without waiving the above objections.' It is therefore unclear whether the substantive responses that were provided were in any way limited by the objections. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.240, subd. (b)(1).) The focus of Mandala and HOI's opposition is not whether the requested documents should be produced at all, but whether they should be produced pursuant to a protective order based on their privacy objections. Janis argues that a protective order is unnecessary because she is a director of Mandala (although not HOI) and has a statutory right to inspect financial records. Whether Janis is a director is Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078734  47 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  THE HEALTH OPTIMIZING INSTITUTE VS AUCLAIR [IMAGED]  37-2021-00040202-CU-BT-CTL disputed, and the motion lacks any evidence on that issue. Any inspection rights she may have are also not pertinent to the scope and limits of discovery in this case. (See Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 328.) Under the circumstances, a protective order is appropriate to safeguard the privacy rights at issue. (See Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 313, 317–318, disapproved on other grounds.) For the reasons set forth above, the motion to compel is granted. With the exception of their privacy objections, Mandala's and HOI's objections are overruled. Mandala's and HOI's privacy objections are sustained in part, and all documents produced pursuant to RFPs 1–5 shall be kept confidential and only used for purposes of prosecuting and defending the claims in this case. Further responses and responsive documents shall be served within 20 days.

Janis' request for sanctions is denied. The request was not made until Janis filed her reply. Any such request needed to be in the notice of motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.040.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3078734  47