Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. BACKGROUND 

On May 21, 2020, plaintiff E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. separately and derivatively on behalf of Mega Global Distribution Inc. dba Consumer Bargain (“Plaintiff”) filed this breach of contract action against defendants Helen Navidi aka Helen Shayan, Shawn Shayan, and Does 1 to 20, and against nominal defendant Mega Global Distribution, Inc. dba Consumer Bargain. On July 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, which sets forth seven causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) conversion, (4) fraud, (5) accounting, (5) constructive trust, and (7) civil conspiracy. 

On August 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining documents from Defendant that were not produced pursuant to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents (“RPDs”). 

Defendants Helen Navidi aka Helen Shayan and Shawn Shayan (collectively, “Defendants”) oppose the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. 

 

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of Petitioner Zohreh McIntyre Shayan’s exhibit list filed November 6, 2020, in Case No. SD025162. 

The request is denied. 

 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP § 2024.050 provides, in relevant part:¿ 

¿“(a) On motion of any party, the court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. This motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040. 

¿(b) In exercising its discretion to grant or deny this motion, the court shall take into consideration any matter relevant to the leave requested, including, but not limited to, the following: 

(1) The necessity and the reasons for the discovery.¿ 

(2) The diligence or lack of diligence of the party seeking the discovery or the hearing of a discovery motion, and the reasons that the discovery was not completed or that the discovery motion was not heard earlier.¿ 

¿(3) Any likelihood that permitting the discovery or hearing the discovery motion will prevent the case from going to trial on the date set, or otherwise interfere with the trial calendar, or result in prejudice to any other party. 

(4) The length of time that has elapsed between any date previously set, and the date presently set, for the trial of the action.” 

 

VI. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff argues discovery should be reopened for the limited purpose of obtaining copies of 2015-2020 bank statements and PayPal statements, and that Plaintiff could not have discovered this earlier because Plaintiff provided deceitful responses to Plaintiff’s request for production (“RPDs”), set one. Plaintiff contends the trial date will not be disturbed because the bank statements sought are in the possession of defendant Helen Shayan’s attorney and can be produced within one day. 

In opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s principal David Kazemi (“Mr. Kazemi”) participated in the divorce proceeding, as did Plaintiff’s counsel, such that Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration is a deliberate misrepresentation. Defendants contend Mr. Kazemi has the records, and that Zoreh provided documents described as bank records of Mega Global Distribution, Inc. to Defendants four days before the motion was filed. Further, Defendants avers Plaintiff has not been diligent because Plaintiff never subpoenaed the bank records that it claims are critical to its case. 

In reply, Plaintiff focuses on the protracted issues regarding Defendants serving responses to the RPDs pursuant to the orders of discovery referee Judge Clay M. Smith, and reiterates the assertion that it should have been advised that the bank statements were available through dissolution counsel. 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown diligence in seeking the bank statements. Plaintiff fails to directly respond to Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff’s principal and counsel participated in the dissolution proceedings and were aware of the documents/that Mr. Kazemi has it in his possession, nor did Plaintiff address why it did not seek to directly subpoena the bank records earlier instead of solely relying on Defendants’ responses to the RPDs. Additionally, there is no evidence Plaintiff ever issued any subpoenas for the subject bank statements throughout litigation, when discovery was still open. Trial is currently set for November 18, 2024. This action is now over four years old, with the trial date having been moved multiple times. Plaintiff argues the trial date will not be disturbed because Helen’s attorney, Mr. Oxley, can produce the bank statements within one day. Considering the contentions surrounding production of those documents due to the order issued in the dissolution matter, such that it appears Plaintiff would likely have to opt for subpoenaing the records, there would not be enough time for Plaintiff to obtain the documents without disturbing the trial date. Under the totality of the circumstances, the factors weigh against reopening discovery. 

 

V. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery for limited purposes is DENIED. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: October 11, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.