Judge: Theodore R. Howard, Case: 20-1169357, Date: 2023-08-17 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 III.  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, the Court has already ruled on this issue when it overruled CRA’s and Thompson’s objections to the discovery referee’s Report Nos. 1 and 2 on August 7, 2023.  (See ROA 1758.)  The Court found that it was not appropriate to deem all financial records after a specific valuation date as irrelevant and that the issue of the valuation date for Parman’s damages is an issue to be decided either in summary judgment or at trial.  (See Id.)  The Court makes the same finding here and concludes that the interrogatories at issue thus seek information relevant to this action.  Specifically, the information sought may be relevant to the value of CRA and thus to Parman’s alleged damages.  Accordingly, CRA’s first objection is OVERRULED.

Regarding the second and third objections, the discovery referee correctly found that CRA’s and Thompson’s objections to the subject discovery were without substantial justification and manifestly obstructive.  (See ROA 1727; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.220 and 2033.220; see also, Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)  Given CRA’s and Thompson’s failure to provide complete and straightforward responses and their failure to make any attempt whatsoever to provide a substantive response, the Court finds sanctions against CRA, Thompson and their counsel are warranted.  Accordingly, the second and third objections are OVERRULED.

Parman’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.  (Ev. Code §452(d).)

Counsel for Parman is to give notice