Judge: Nick A. Dourbetas, Case: 2021-01210846, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling

1. Motion – Other – to Confirm Confidentiality Designation of Forensic Images

2. Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication

3. Motion to Compel Deposition (Oral or Written)

4. Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

5. Motion to Compel Production

6. Motion to Compel Production

7. Motion to Compel Production

Motion 2:

Cross-complainant Abdelnassar Mohammad Adas’ motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for breach of contract in his cross-complaint is DENIED.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1) [authorizing summary adjudication]; Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821 [breach of contract elements].) 

Moving party has not met his initial burden of presenting evidence establishing the first element of a breach of contract claim, i.e. the existence of a valid contract.  The moving papers seek summary adjudication based on a different Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement [“RSPA”] than is the subject of the cross-complaint.  (Compare Ex. A to cross-complaint vs. Ex. D to moving papers; see also responding party’s Ex. 3 [same as moving party’s Ex. D], and responding party’s Ex. 7 [same as RSPA attached to cross-complaint].)  Moving party cites no authority allowing summary adjudication of a different contract than alleged.  (See FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 380–381 [pleadings frame issues on summary judgment / adjudication; moving party must “show that material factual claims arising from the pleadings need not be tried because they are not in dispute”].) 

Further, even if moving party had met its initial burden as to this element, responding party provides evidence showing a triable issue as to which RSPA governs.  (Moving party’s Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; responding party’s Response to Separate Statement, Fact No. 2; responding party’s Separate Statement of Additional Facts, Fact Nos. 6, 9, 32.)

Moreover, there are triable issues of fact as to plaintiff’s performance under either RSPA, which triable issues would also require denial of the motion.  (Moving party Separate Statement, Fact No. 37; responding party’s Response to Separate Statement, Fact No. 37; responding party’s Separate Statement of Additional Facts, Fact Nos. 17-21, 35, 36.) 

Rulings on the moving party’s evidentiary objections:

          Bajwa Decl.

1.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5.)  Further, the entire portion objected to does not suffer from the defects asserted.  (Ambriz v. Kelegian (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1528 [error to sustain evidentiary objection where “at least some portion of the proffered deposition testimony” was admissible].)

2.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5.) 

3.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5.) 

4.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5.)  Further, the entire portion objected to does not suffer from the defects asserted.  (Ambriz v. Kelegian, supra at 1528.)

5.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Para. 12 [Bajwa himself filed an 83(b) declaration, which shows sufficient foundation].)

6.       Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5.) 

7.       Overruled.  Declarant can opine as to his understanding of disputed and/or ambiguous contract terms.   (CCP 1856(g) [parol evidence rule “does not exclude other evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates … or to explain an extrinsic ambiguity or otherwise interpret the terms of the agreement …”].)

8.       Overruled.  Declarant can opine as to his understanding of disputed and/or ambiguous contract terms.   (CCP 1856(g).)

9.       Sustained: Lacks foundation.

10.     Overruled.  Statements by Adas are admissible as party admissions.  (Evid. Code 1220.)

11.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5, 28-31.)

12.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 28-31.)

13.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Bajwa Decl., Paras. 3-5, 28-31.)

14.     Overruled.  Declarant as CEO can sufficiently provide foundation of the updated stock table.

          Ahmed Decl.

15.     Sustained: Lacks foundation.

16.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Ahmed Decl., Paras. 8, 9, 13-16.)

17.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Ahmed Decl., Paras. 8, 9, 13-16.)

18.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.

          Kao Decl.

19.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Para. 6.)

20.     Sustained: lacks foundation.

21.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Paras. 10-13.)

22.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Para. 15.)

23.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Paras. 9, 13.)

24.     Overruled.  Statements by Adas are admissible as party admissions.  (Evid. Code 1220.)

25.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Paras. 9, 13, 21.)

26.     Overruled.  Declarant provides sufficient foundation.  (Kao Decl., Paras. 9, 13, 21.)

Moving Party’s Reply Separate Statement:

With the Reply, moving party submitted a “response” to Reply Party’s Separate Statement of Additional Facts.  (ROA 443.)  However, “[t]here is no provision in the statute” for a Reply Separate Statement.  (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.)  Moving Party’s Reply Separate Statement is not considered.

Cross-defendant Litrinium, Inc. shall give notice.

Court’s Motion: Appointment of Discovery Referee

On its own motion, and after notice to and briefing by the parties, the Court appoints Judge Robert Moss (Ret.), as Discovery Referee for all discovery disputes in this matter.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 639 et seq.) 

The Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist for the appointment of a Discovery Referee.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (d)(2); Taggares v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 [“factors favoring reference … include: (1) there are multiple issues to be resolved; (2) there are multiple motions to be heard simultaneously; (3) the present motion is only one in a continuum of many; (4) the number of documents to be reviewed (especially in issues based on assertions of privilege) make the inquiry inordinately time-consuming”].)

All discovery motions set for hearing on this date and future dates shall be heard by the discovery referee.

The Court finds that no party has established an economic inability to pay a pro rata share of the referee's fee.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 639, subd. (d)(6)(A).)  Each party shall be responsible for 50% of the cost of the Discovery Referee’s fees.  The Discovery Referee may recommend to the court a different allocation, either per motion, or per Referee session, in any report submitted for the court’s approval.

All future discovery motions are accordingly vacated. 

Mandatory Settlement Conference is vacated.

Jury trial is continued to April 2, 2024 at 9:00 AM.

Plaintiff Litrinium, Inc. shall give notice.