Case Number: BC611785 Hearing Date: May 24, 2018 Dept: SEC

METROPOLITAN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. SPECIAL SERVICES FOR GROUPS, INC.

CASE NO.: BC611785

HEARING: 05/24/18

JUDGE: LORI ANN FOURNIER

#2

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant U-B CONTRACTORS’ motion to compel responses to deposition questions is DENIED.

Opposing Party to give Notice.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Cal. Ev. Code §452.

Plaintiffs METROPOLITAN INDUSTRIES, INC., and CENTRAL TRIAD HOLDINGS, LLC filed this property damage action on February 25, 2016. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused severe property damage to one of their buildings. Plaintiffs’ damages were allegedly caused by Defendants’ negligent demolition/construction project on a building adjacent to Plaintiffs’ building. The two entity Plaintiffs in this action are owned jointly by three brothers, RAMIN RAHIMI, PAYMEN RAHIMI, and KAMRAN RAHIMI (collectively “Rahimi Brothers”). At their respective depositions, Kamran Rahimi and Paymen Rahimi were instructed not to answer any questions identifying the other LLCs and properties owned by the Rahimi Brothers on grounds of invasion of privacy.

Defendant argues that the Rahimi Brothers should be ordered to respond to deposition questions identifying the additional non-party LLCs and properties owned by the Rahimi Brothers, where the Rahimi Brothers purportedly disregard corporate formalities. Defendant argues that this information is relevant to establish that the Rahimi Brothers failed to mitigate their claimed damages Specifically, Defendant argues that the Rahimi Brothers had the means to utilize funds from one of their other LLCs to either: fund an investigation into the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged damages, or otherwise repair the Subject Property at issue in this litigation.

A motion to compel is proper where a deponent refuses to answer questions during deposition. (CCP §2025.480(a).) The party seeking discovery of financial records must show a compelling need for the requested information by showing the information requested is directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. (Alch v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1425.)

Defendant’s motion is denied. Defendant fails to establish how the information sought is relevant to establish Plaintiffs’ failure to mitigate damages. It is undisputed that the Subject Property is owned by the named entity Plaintiffs, not the Rahimi Brothers in their individual capacities, or by any other named entities. Moreover, the non-party Rahimi Brothers are entitled to a right to financial privacy. Defendant attempts to disregard the rules pertaining to corporate formality. There is no basis to conclude that the Rahimi Brothers are personally obligated to mitigate the entity Plaintiffs’ damages.