Collaborative Imaging Technology, LLC vs CMI Management LLC et al

Case Number

24CV05224

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 11/24/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motions to Compel (3); Motion re Protective Order; Motion to Quash; Motion re Sanctions; Motion to Stay and Motion to Quash Deposition Notices; Motion re Stay Complaint

Tentative Ruling

Collaborative Imaging Technology, LLC, v. CMI Management, LLC, et al. 

Case No. 24CV05224

           

Hearing Date: November 24, 2025                                                    

HEARING:              (1)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology for Protective Order (filed Apr. 25)

                                    (2)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories, Sets One and Two, from Defendants (filed July 21)

                                    (3)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, from Defendants (filed July 21)

                                    (4)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Sets One, Two, and Three, from Defendants (filed July 21)

                                    (5)       Motion of Defendants to Stay the Deposition of, or Quash the Notice of Deposition of, Laura Traube, M.D., and for Protective Order (filed July 7)

                                    (6)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology to Quash Deposition Subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and to King & Spaulding LLP (filed June 13)

                                    (7)       Motion of Defendants to Stay Complaint (filed May 15)

                                    (8)       Motion of Collaborative Imaging Technology for Sanctions re Motion to Stay (filed July 18)

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Collaborative Imaging Technology: Nilay U. Vora, Jeffrey A. Atteberry, Tamara Wiesebron, Andrew I. Campa, The Vora Law Firm, P.C.

                                    For Defendants and Cross-Complainants CMI Management, LLC, Pueblo Radiology Medical Group, Inc., and Pueblo Radiology Associates, Inc.: Christopher B. Queally, Imran F. Vakil, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

                                    For Cross-Defendant Collaborative Imaging, LLC: Elizabeth Fellmeth, Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP

                       

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1)       Unless a party appears at the hearing and informs the court either that the party has not received service of a specific report and recommendation or that the party intends to file a timely objection to a specific report and recommendation, the court adopts, and makes as orders of the court, the recommendations of the Discovery Referee as set forth in: (1) Recommendations on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions (re motion filed Apr. 25, 2025), filed November 3, 2025; (2) Recommendation on Defendants’ Combined (a) Motion to Stay Deposition/ Quash Deposition Notice of Laura Traube, M.D., and (b) Motion for a Protective Order as to the Deposition of Laura E. Traube M.D. Issued by Plaintiff Collaborative Image Technology, LLC (re motion filed July 7) , filed November 3, 2025; (3) Recommendations Re Plaintiff’s Interrogatory and Requests for Admission Motions (re 2 motions filed July 21) , filed November 3, 2025, and (4) Attachment to the Recommendations, filed November 3, 2025; and (5) Recommendations Re Plaintiff’s Production Demand Motion (re motion filed July 21), filed November 3, 2025. Adoption of these recommendations resolves the corresponding motions now on the court’s docket.

(2)       The court adopts recommendation No. 4 of the Discovery Referee’s Recommendations Re Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Collaborative Image Technology, LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and King & Spalding LLP, and to Pay Sanctions (re motion filed June 13) requiring further briefing to the Discovery Referee. The resolution of all other matters are deferred pending the Discovery Referee’s completed recommendations. Any response to the objections, as filed by Collaborative Imaging Technology, LLC, and joined by Collaborative Imaging, LLC, on November 13, 2025, shall be filed and served on or before November 24, 2025 (as provided in the October 1, 2025, order of the court appointing the Discovery Referee). The hearing on this motion, including a hearing on any objections, is continued to February 9, 2026.

(3)       The hearing on the motion of defendants to stay the complaint and the motion of plaintiff for sanctions re motion to stay are continued to February 9, 2026.      

Background:

The procedural history of this matter is as follows:

On September 19, 2024, plaintiff Collaborative Imaging Technology, LLC, (CIT) filed its original complaint in this action asserting three causes of action against defendants CMI Management, LLC, (CMIM), Pueblo Radiology Medical Group, Inc. (PRMG), and Pueblo Radiology Associates, Inc. (PRA) (collectively, defendants or Pueblo): (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) promissory fraud. The complaint was initially lodged with the court provisionally under seal, but was unsealed and filed in the public record following the court’s denial of CIT’s motion to seal.

On November 21, 2024, defendants filed their motion to compel arbitration of their breach of contract claims and to stay the balance of the action.

On January 8, 2025, defendants made an ex parte application to stay discovery pending disposition of their motion to compel arbitration, which was partially granted by the court on January 9 to stay discovery to February 24 or further order of the court.

On February 18, 2025, the parties filed their initial stipulation, entered as the court’s order, withdrawing the pending motion to compel arbitration and setting deadlines for responsive pleadings.

On February 21, 2025, the parties filed an amended stipulation (Amended Stipulation), entered as the court’s order, again withdrawing the pending motion to compel arbitration and setting deadlines for responsive pleadings.

On February 27, 2025, defendants filed their answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting 23 affirmative defenses. Defendants concurrently filed their cross-complaint against cross-defendants CIT and Collaborative Imaging, LLC (CI), asserting six causes of action: (1) breach of contract (specific performance); (2) breach of contract (damages); (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) accounting; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; and (6) tortious interference with contractual relations.

On April 17, 2025, defendants filed their first amended answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting 19 affirmative defenses.

On April 25, 2025, CIT filed its demurrer to the fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action of Pueblo’s cross-complaint. Also on April 25, CIT filed a motion to strike portions of the Pueblo’s cross-complaint, and a motion for protective order relating to the number of special interrogatories.

On April 30, 2025, CIT filed a declaration of demurring party stating that CIT intended to file a demurrer to Pueblo’s answer to the complaint to support an automatic extension of time.

On May 15, 2025, Pueblo filed a motion to stay CIT’s complaint on the grounds that CIT has conducted intrastate business and has failed to register to do business in California.

On May 28, 2025, Pueblo filed its second amended answer (SAA) to CIT’s complaint, generally denying the allegations of the complaint and asserting 19 affirmative defenses. Also on May 28, Pueblo filed a motion to seal portions of its motion to stay the complaint.

On June 11, 2025, CIT filed its motion to compel arbitration of the cross-complaint.

On June 13, 2025, CIT filed its motion to quash deposition subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and to King & Spaulding LLP.

On June 18, 2025, CI filed its joinder in CIT’s motion to compel arbitration.

On July 7, 2025, Pueblo filed its combined motion to stay the deposition of, or quash the notice of deposition of, Laura Traube, M.D., and for protective order.

On July 10, 2025, CIT filed its demurrer to Pueblo’s SAA. CIT concurrently filed a motion to strike portions of the SAA.

On July 18, 2025, CIT filed its motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.7 and 128.5.

On July 21, 2025, Pueblo filed an ex parte application to stay all discovery pending disposition of the motion to compel arbitration. The ex parte application was heard and granted on July 22, staying discovery pending the future hearing of all pending motions.

Also on July 21, 2025, CIT filed motions to compel further responses to interrogatories, further responses to requests for admissions, and further responses to requests for production of documents.

On July 22, 2025, Pueblo filed opposition to the demurrer to the cross-complaint, motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint, motion for protective order, and motion to compel arbitration. Also on July 22, CIT filed opposition to the motion to stay complaint, combined motion as to the deposition of Traube, and motion to quash deposition subpoenas as to Proskauer Rose and King & Spaulding.

Also on July 22, 2025, Pueblo filed a motion to seal certain documents lodged provisionally under seal in support of Pueblo’s motion to quash.

On July 28, 2025, CIT filed replies to the demurrer to the cross-complaint, motion to strike, motion to compel arbitration, motion to quash subpoenas as to Proskauer Rose and King & Spaulding (with reply declarations), and motion for protective order. Also on July 28, Pueblo filed replies as to the combined motion as to the deposition of Traube, and the motion to stay complaint (with reply declarations, a request for judicial notice, and objections to evidence).

On August 4, 2025, the court denied the motion of CIT, joined by CI, to compel arbitration. The court ordered the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether the denial of the motion to compel arbitration affected any other pending motion. The court continued all other then-pending motions to this hearing of September 22.

On August 29, 2025, in response to the court’s orders of August 4, the parties filed a joint status report regarding their existing disputes in light of the court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. The parties continue to disagree on virtually everything.

On September 15, 2025, CIT filed replies to the motion for sanctions, demurrer to the SAA, motion to strike portions of the SAA, motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, and motion to compel further responses to interrogatories.

On September 16, 2025, Pueblo filed opposition to the demurrer to the SAA, and to the motion for sanctions. Pueblo also filed the declaration of attorney Christopher B. Queally stating that he mistakenly believed from the court’s August 4 ruling and subsequent discussions that further briefing on the motions was suspended until the September 22. (Queally decl., ¶ 5.) Queally also states that oppositions to the discovery motions will be filed by Thursday, September 18. (Queally decl., ¶ 10.)

On September 22, 2025, the court made a number of rulings, including: (1) CIT’s

demurrer to the cross-complaint of Pueblo was sustained, with leave to amend, as to the sixth cause of action (tortious interference with contract), and was in all other respects overruled; (2) the motion of CIT to strike portions of the cross-complaint was denied in its entirety; (3) CIT’s demurrer to the SAA was sustained, with leave to amend, as to the seventh (litigation privilege) and ninth (uncertainty) affirmative defenses and was in all other respects overruled; (4) the motion of CIT to strike portions of the SAA was denied in its entirety; (5) the motion of Pueblo, filed May 28, 2025, to file certain documents under seal was denied; and (6) the motion of Pueblo, filed July 22, 2025, to file under seal portions of certain documents was granted. The court also stated its intention to appoint a discovery referee. All other matters set for hearing on that calendar were continued to November 24.

On September 29, 2025, Pueblo filed its notice pursuant to the court’s September 22 order electing to file in the public record those documents for which its motion to seal was denied.

On October 1, 2025, the court entered its order on the stipulation of the parties appointing R.A. Carrington as Discovery Referee extending to all matters concerning discovery in this action. The order transferred all pending discovery motions to the referee.

On October 7, 2025, Pueblo filed its third amended answer to CIT’s complaint.

On October 13, 2025, CIT filed its answer to Pueblo’s cross-complaint, generally denying the allegations thereof and asserting 26 affirmative defenses.

On November 3, 2025, Discovery Referee Carrington filed five reports and an attachment: (1) Recommendations on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and for Sanctions (re motion filed Apr. 25); (2) Recommendations Re Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Collaborative Image Technology, LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and King & Spalding LLP, and to Pay Sanctions (re motion filed June 13); (3) Recommendation on Defendants’ Combined (a) Motion to Stay Deposition/ Quash Deposition Notice of Laura Traube, M.D., and (b) Motion for a Protective Order as to the Deposition of Laura E. Traube M.D. Issued by Plaintiff Collaborative Image Technology, LLC (re motion filed July 7); (4) (i) Recommendations Re Plaintiff’s Interrogatory and Requests for Admission Motions (re motions filed July 21) and (ii) Attachment to the Recommendations; and (5) Recommendations Re Plaintiff’s Production Demand Motion (re motion filed July 21).

On November 13, 2025, CIT filed its objections to the Recommendations Re Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Collaborative Image Technology, LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and King & Spalding LLP, and to Pay Sanctions (re motion filed June 13). In support of these objections, CIT filed the declaration of attorney Tamara Wiesebron. Also on November 13, CI filed its joinder to CIT’s objections.

On November 17, 2025, CIT filed a sur-reply in support of its motion for sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.7 and 128.5 against defendants.

Analysis:

(1)       Discovery Motions

As noted above, on November 3, 2025, Discovery Referee Carrington filed five reports and an attachment. As set forth in the order, filed on October 1 on the stipulation of the parties, appointing the Discovery Referee (the October 1 Order):

“Within 10 days after service of the Referee’s report and recommendation, any party may file with the Court and serve on all parties and the Referee an objection to the report and recommendation, which shall include the papers filed with the Referee and a copy of the final report and recommendation. Within 10 days after service of the objection, any party may serve and file a response.” (October 1 Order, ¶ 9.)

On November 13, 2025, CIT filed an objection to one of the reports, specifically, the Recommendations Re Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Collaborative Image Technology, LLC’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas to Proskauer Rose LLP and King & Spalding LLP (re motion filed June 13 (the Law Firm Subpoena Motion)), to which CI filed a joinder. No objections to any other recommendation has been filed.

As set forth in the October 1 Order, the time to file an objection runs from service of the report and recommendation. However, no proofs of service are attached to the reports or separately filed. Based upon the filing of an objection to one of these reports, the court infers that all of the reports were contemporaneously served by the Discovery Referee at the time of filing, and thus the time to object has run.  The court requests either that the Discovery Referee file a proof of service as to future reports or that the Discovery Referee directs a party to file proof of such service. Because no other objection has been filed and the court infers timely service, unless a party appears at the hearing on this matter and informs the court that it has not received service of a report, the court will adopt the recommendations of the Discovery Referee as set forth in the four reports to which no objection has been filed.

With respect to the recommendation as to the Law Firm Subpoena Motion, objections were filed and served, by electronic service, on November 13, 2025. Under the October 1 Order, a response is not due until November 25—after this hearing. The court will therefore continue the hearing on this motion, on the recommendations of the Discovery Referee, and on objections thereto to a later date. At the same time, however, the court notes that the recommendations as to the Law Firm Subpoena Motion are partial recommendations with a requirement for further briefing (recommendation No. 4). The court will adopt the recommendation for further briefing in order to facilitate the completion of recommendations for the resolution of this motion.

(2)       Motion to Stay and Motion for Sanctions

The hearing on these motions will be continued.