Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1169357, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Before the Court is Calculated Risk Analytics, LLC’s (“CRA”) and Michael Thompson’s (“Thompson”) limited objections to the Report and Recommendation of Discovery Referee – Phase I, and Report and Recommendation of Discovery Referee – Phase II.  Having reviewed the discovery referee’s recommendations, the objections of CRA and Thompson, and the response to objections filed by Maryam Parman (“Parman”), the Court OVERRULES CRA’s and Thompson’s objections.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 643(c).)

“The court has broad discretion to determine the best method for considering a party’s challenges to the referee’s findings, and the court is not required to hold a hearing or conduct a de novo analysis of the underlying arguments. [Citations.] In its review, the court should give the referee’s findings ‘ “great weight” ’ and focus on the parties’ objections to those findings. [Citation.]”  (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 589.)

Regarding the first objection, as the discovery referee recognized, and as Parman contends in her response, the issue of the valuation date for Parman’s damages is an issue to be decided either in summary judgment or at trial.  CRA and Thompson are essentially asking the Court to make a ruling as to when Parman’s damages accrue.  These discovery proceedings are not the proper method to seek such rulings.  In addition, as the discovery referee noted, “[i]t appears the issue of the date on which Parman elected to choose the remedy of damages only and to treat the alleged repudiation as an anticipatory breach is open for debate.”  (See Report No. 2 at p. 4.)  Moreover, Parman’s contention that any damages expert will need data from both before and after any selected valuation date to form an opinion on the valuation of CRA has merit.  Thus, the Court does not find it appropriate to deem all financial documents after a specific valuation date as irrelevant.  Accordingly, CRA’s and Thompson’s first objection is OVERRULED.

Regarding the second objection, the discovery referee correctly found that RFP No. 103 to CRA is not remotely “unduly burdensome” nor does it fail to describe the requested documents with reasonable particularity.  The discovery referee also correctly found that, with respect to RFP Nos. 108 to CRA and RFP Nos. 2 and 72 to Thompson, the documents sought are clearly relevant to this action as investments by Thompson in CRA are relevant regardless of the dates on which the investments were made and the burden is minimal.  The discovery referee indicated that CRA and Thompson can conduct a reasonable search for the documents.  No further limitations appear warranted here. 

Moreover, CRA and Thompson failed to provide evidence that the burden of complying with the discovery requests would clearly outweigh the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.  “An ‘objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required.’”  (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 549; see also, C.C.P. § 2017.020(a).)

Accordingly, CRA’s and Thompson’s second objection is OVERRULED.

The request for judicial notice (ROA 1704) is GRANTED as to the existence of and legal effects of the records, but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein.  (Ev. Code §452(d); Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.)

Counsel for Parman to give notice.