Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 22STCV15317, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randolph M. Hammock, Case: 22STCV15317, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff DailyGobble, Inc., brings this Complaint against Defendants Amit Jain, Alliance Group Ventures, LLC, and Chirag Patil. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jain is the CEO of Bridg, Inc., and Plaintiff DailyGobble held a sizeable number of shares in Bridg. Defendant Jain approached Plaintiff about a potential sale of its shares, and falsely represented that the shares were worth no more than $0.75 each. At the same time, Defendant was negotiating a sale of Bridg in a transaction that would represent a substantial premium from the valuation Jain disclosed to DailyGobble. In reliance on Jain’s representations, Plaintiff DailyGobble sold 851,601 shares of Bridg stock to Alliance Group Ventures, purportedly operated by and for Defendant Patil, at a price of $0.725 per share. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Alliance Group and Patil are fronts for Defendant Jain. Months after Plaintiff sold its shares, Cardlytics, Inc. acquired all of Bridg’s outstanding stock at $9 per share, a 1200% increase in the price Plaintiff received for its shares.

(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.

(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.

(c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to extend or to reopen discovery, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

Trial in this matter was initially set for June 3, 2024. Discovery closed on May 6, 2024. The trial date was later continued to March 2, 2026, with discovery to remain closed absent a showing of good cause to reopen it.

In support of its motion as to Ms. Jain, Plaintiff asserts that “[j]ust a month before the close of discovery, Defendant Jain introduced a declaration and produced records from [Ms. Jain] for the first time ostensibly explaining why $4.6 million dollars that supposedly belonged to her (from investing into AGV / purchasing Plaintiff’s Bridg shares) went to a bank account solely in Jain’s name and then remained there for over a year until after this lawsuit was filed.” (Mtn. 4: 10-14.) Defendants did not produce this evidence “until late January 2024,” leaving Plaintiff little time to subpoena Ms. Jain, who is a UK resident. (Id. 4:16.) Plaintiff contends discovery from Ms. Jain is necessary to prevent prejudice if she is called as a witness at trial, and to allow Plaintiff to further develop its theory that AGV is Jain’s alter ego.

As to Mr. Weisman, Plaintiff asserts that “[e]vidence has shown that at the same time Jain was negotiating Bridg’s acquisition by Cardlytics, he was simultaneously arranging for the redistribution of a significant portion of Plaintiff’s Bridg shares to Mr. Weisman, who sat on Cardlytics’ Board of Directors.” (Mtn. 4: 24-26.) Plaintiff contends that “Jain went to great lengths to conceal his deal with Weisman…” (Mtn. 5: 1-6.) Plaintiff sought to subpoena Weisman starting in November 2023 but was unsuccessful in doing so before the discovery cutoff. (Id. 5: 6-9.) Plaintiff contends that discovery from Weisman is necessary “to confirm Jain’s misrepresentations and further illustrate it was his plan from the start to use Patil and AGV as his intermediaries to bribe Weisman with Plaintiff’s Bridg shares.” (Mtn. 9: 18-20.)

Defendants oppose reopening discovery, accusing Plaintiff of wanting a “mulligan” and facing a problem of its own making. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has long maintained a suspicion that Mr. Weisman and Ms. Jain were implicated in Jain’s alleged scheme, yet failed to diligently pursue discovery. Defendants also argue that the discovery sought from these individuals is not necessary or relevant to the action. Finally, Defendants argue they will face prejudice if discovery is reopened, “including unnecessary time and costs for document review and depositions in foreign jurisdictions,” as well as “navigat[ing] procedural and substantive rules governing those depositions, likely necessitating local counsel.” (Opp. 5: 23-26.)

Here, first, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the discovery of Ms. Jain and Mr. Weisman is, at the very least, relevant to the claims and theories in the complaint. Second, Plaintiff has offered explanations for its failure to complete the discovery before the close. While Plaintiff perhaps could have acted more diligently, there is no evidence that it acted unreasonably. Third, there is little likelihood that reopening discovery will prevent the case from going to trial in March 2026. While the court is mindful that service on Ms. Jain under the Hague Convention can be laborious and time consuming, nearly a full year exists to do so. The court also finds little, if any, undue prejudice to the Defendants if discovery is reopened. While this will necessitate further discovery costs and efforts, that is not a compelling basis to deny the motion. Finally, discovery closed less than one year ago, and the new trial is nearly a year away. Under this timeline, there is little harm in reopening this limited discovery.