Rajeev Chitrabhanu vs Richard Dean Carson et al

Case Number

23CV05200

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/08/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Compel; Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Tentative Ruling

Attorney for Plaintiff Rajeev Chitrabhanu Jeremy Ostrander; Jack E. Pace III; Balaji Venkatakrishnan; Shuhang Liu; Nathan Rogers. 

Attorney for Defendant ProHealth: Nick S. Pujji; Emma Moralyan.

Attorney for Defendant Richard Dean Carson: J. Paul Gignac; Claire K. Mitchell.

Rulings

1. The Admission of Jacqueline Whipple Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. The Court did find a [Proposed] Order submitted that the Court intends to sign.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance and/or Further Response to Request for Production of Documents, Set One to Carson is GRANTED. Carson must produce to Plaintiff an unredacted copy of document RC0002075 on or before 1/15/25. The Court did find a [Proposed] Order submitted that the Court intends to sign.

Analysis

The Court disagrees with Mr. Gignac’s and Ms. Mitchell’s analysis which the Court has read and considered hereinbelow: They contend that although framed as a “motion to compel compliance and/or further response” to a request for production of documents, what Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel actually seeks is the production of a single document in unredacted form. That document, identified as RC0002075, is a document containing a string of text messages between Carson and Mona Eliassen, who is a member of the Board of Directors of Defendant ProHealth Inc. (“ProHealth”). The document was produced by Carson in semi-redacted form – meaning that some, but not all, of the test messages contained on document have been redacted. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the production of a non-redacted version of RC0002075 should be denied for three distinct reasons. 

First, by agreement of counsel for the parties after meeting and conferring extensively on the subject of the redacted portions of RC0002075, counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Carson agreed that Plaintiff’s deadline for filing a motion to compel production of a non-redacted version of RC0002075 would be November 13, 2024. Consistent with the agreement made by counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for Carson, Plaintiff filed on November 13, 2024, and set for hearing on November 14, 2024 what Plaintiff titled an Ex Parte Application to Compel Further Discovery Responses from Defendant Richard Dean Carson (“Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application”) wherein Plaintiff sought the exact same relief that Plaintiff now seeks by Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel – namely: production of a non-redacted version of RC0002075. Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application was denied by the Court. Thereafter, on November 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel, which is clearly time-barred because it was filed nine days after the agreed upon deadline for filing such a motion. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied on that basis alone.

Second, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel plainly qualifies as a motion for reconsideration that has been filed without satisfying any of the statutory prerequisites for a motion for reconsideration. It is undisputable that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks the exact same relief as Plaintiff’s previously denied Ex Parte Application – namely: production of a non-redacted version of RC0002075. Yet, Plaintiff has made no showing of an intervening change in the law or newly discovered facts that would justify renewing the request that was the subject of Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. The fact that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application (which is still a “motion”) was denied by the Court because the relief being sought by Plaintiff was not exigent does not exempt Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application from being classified as a prior motion seeking the same relief. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel should be denied as an improper motion for reconsideration. 

Third, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel seeks to discover the content of text messages that are completely irrelevant to the claims alleged in this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because they are not responsive to Plaintiff’s document requests. RC0002075 is a string of text messages between Carson and Mona Eliassen forwarding and discussing text messages between Carson and Dan Obegi (the Chief Executive Officer of ProHealth). The text messages were exchanged more than a year after Plaintiff had ceased his efforts to dupe Carson into giving Plaintiff an equity interest in ProHealth. However, because one of the text messages mentions Plaintiff’s name, that text message was produced and not redacted. The other text messages are not responsive to any of the requests for production of documents propounded by Plaintiff and, therefore, were redacted. Because the content of the redacted text messages is not responsive to any of Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents, Plaintiff is seeking communications that are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, even if the Court determines that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel was timely filed (clearly, it was not) and even if the Court determines that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is not an improper motion for reconsideration (clearly, it is), the Court should nonetheless deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel as seeking irrelevant and nonresponsive communications.

Reply

The Court finds the Reply persuasive wherein the Plaintiff argues: By the present Motion, Plaintiff seeks to have Defendant Carson produce a single document in unredacted format because the redactions on the document have no basis in the law and are intended to do nothing but frustrate the discovery process. In addition to claiming that this Motion is procedurally inappropriate, Mr. Carson makes only one substantive argument: that the redacted potions of the document at issue, RC0002075, are separate, non-responsive documents.  Mr. Carson presents no authority under California law supporting his position that redactions for responsiveness are allowed; indeed, the parties agreed to stipulated orders in this matter, and such redactions are not contemplated under either the ESI Protocol or Protective Order entered in this action.  As noted in the authorities cited in the Motion – which Mr. Carson does not refute on the substance, only noting that they are not California Court of Appeal cases – allowing such redactions impedes the discovery process, invites disputes, and is wholly unnecessary where there is a Protective Order in place (as here).  This failure by Mr. Carson is alone enough to grant the motion.  

As for Mr. Carson’s arguments that the redacted material is irrelevant, that argument is belied by the opposition itself as well as the recent testimony of the CEO of ProHealth (of which Mr. Carson is the majority shareholder), Dan Obegi.  As described in Plaintiff’s moving papers, the parties have exchanged hundreds of documents in discovery, with Mr. Carson electing to apply redactions to a number of documents, including the document at issue on this motion, RC0002075.  Mr. Carson produced a privilege log on November 5, 2024 attempting to defend the redactions to RC0002075 based on a claim that the redacted material was “[n]ot responsive to do any document request.” 

Relevance is not a basis for redaction, and in any event Defendant’s Opposition to this motion now admits that RC0002075 contains text messages between Mr. Carson and Mona Eliasen (a board member of ProHealth) “forward[ing] text messages [] between Mr. Carson and Mr. Obegi’s regarding Mr. Obegi’s employment agreement.”  While the parties had previously agreed to postpone discovery of the negotiation of Mr. Obegi’s agreement – an agreement on which Mr. Carson reneged, similar to his fraudulent pattern of conduct with respect to both the Plaintiff and Mr. Obegi’s predecessor as CEO, Ms. Dayton – at his deposition as person most knowledgeable for ProHealth, which took place after the filing of the present motion (but before the filing of Defendant’s opposition), Mr. Obegi unequivocally testified about his negotiations with Mr. Carson, and counsel for ProHealth argued that such testimony was relevant to Plaintiff’s agreement with Defendants that is the subject of the Complaint.  Based on the surrounding language, ProHealth’s testimony, and the description by ProHealth’s counsel, the redacted information is responsive to several of Plaintiff’s document requests.  Given that Mr. Carson’s opposition admits that the redacted material relates to that very subject matter placed in issue by Defendant ProHealth – and independently relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations concerning Defendants’ pattern of conduct – the Court should reject Carson’s position that the material is irrelevant and order RC0002075 to be produced in unredacted form.  

Mr. Carson’s procedural arguments miss the mark.  As discussed with the Court at the November 14 hearing, Plaintiff was directed by the Court to file the present motion as a fully noticed motion rather than an ex parte motion because “discovery motions do not lend themselves to ex parte” relief.  Although the Court “was not able to tell counsel” at the hearing when the noticed motion would be heard counsel for the Plaintiff understood that Plaintiff was to check with the clerk and file this motion for hearing on normal notice.  For similar reasons, this motion is not a motion for reconsideration – it was directed by the Court following the previous ex parte filing. 

Even were the Court to determine that this Motion should be considered a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff asks that the Court consider the facts establishing the relevance of the contents of RC0002075, as described in the accompanying Ostrander declaration in support of his reply.  In particular, the testimony of Mr. Obegi regarding the subject matter redacted in RC0002075 and the position taken by Counsel for ProHealth as to the relevance of that material, post-date both the ex parte filing and even the present motion filing.

The Court has broad discretion in ruling on motions to compel. The Court’s decision to deny the ex parte application does not preclude the Court from granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel if the Defendant has not complied with his discovery obligations. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is appropriately before the Court and should not be dismissed as an improper motion for reconsideration.