Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Mccarthy Bouley x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Contract: Other | Massachusetts
USCA Judgment
USCA Judgment as to 203 Notice of Appeal, filed by Amandeep Kaur DDS, P.C., Amandeep Kaur, TejPreet Singh (SP)
Personal Property: Other | Massachusetts
Order on Motion to Compel
Judge Myong J. Joun: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re 110 Motion to Compel Discovery.Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant Dr. Sunit Jain, Inc. (“Jain Inc.”) to produce bank statements and federal tax returns for the period during which Dr. Shashi Barnia allegedly had a partnership and/or investment interest in Jain Inc. The motion, Doc. No. 110 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), discovery extends to nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs contend the requested financial records are relevant to their claims that Dr. Jain aided and abetted Dr. Barnia’s breach of fiduciary duty, including by assisting in the development and operation of competing dental offices. Jain Inc. responds that Dr. Barnia was an investor, not a partner; that the earlier partnership agreement was superseded; and that it has already produced records showing Dr. Barnia’s investment, payments, and repayment. I need not determine at this stage whether Dr. Barnia was formally a partner or shareholder of Jain Inc. It is undisputed that he had a financial relationship with Jain Inc., and the requested bank records may contain information concerning the business activities underlying Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs therefore have established sufficient relevance for limited production of those records. Accordingly, as to Request No. 2, the motion is GRANTED in part. Jain Inc. shall produce bank statements for accounts used in connection with the Springfield dental-office ventures involving Dr. Barnia during the period of his financial relationship with Jain Inc. Jain Inc. may redact transactions wholly unrelated to those ventures, Dr. Barnia, or Tyanna Yaman. As to Request No. 3, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Although tax returns may be discoverable when relevant and the information is unavailable elsewhere, Plaintiffs have not shown at this time that Jain Inc.’s complete tax returns are necessary in addition to the bank records and other financial documents produced or ordered produced. Plaintiffs may renew the request upon a particularized showing that relevant information cannot reasonably be obtained from other sources. The parties shall confer regarding appropriate confidentiality protections for the financial records produced pursuant to this Order. (SKY)
Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant Dr. Sunit Jain, Inc. (“Jain Inc.”) to produce bank statements and federal tax returns for the period during which Dr. Shashi Barnia allegedly had a partnership and/or investment interest in Jain Inc. The motion, Doc. No. 110 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), discovery extends to nonprivileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs contend the requested financial records are relevant to their claims that Dr. Jain aided and abetted Dr. Barnia’s breach of fiduciary duty, including by assisting in the development and operation of competing dental offices. Jain Inc. responds that Dr. Barnia was an investor, not a partner; that the earlier partnership agreement was superseded; and that it has already produced records showing Dr. Barnia’s investment, payments, and repayment.
I need not determine at this stage whether Dr. Barnia was formally a partner or shareholder of Jain Inc. It is undisputed that he had a financial relationship with Jain Inc., and the requested bank records may contain information concerning the business activities underlying Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs therefore have established sufficient relevance for limited production of those records. Accordingly, as to Request No. 2, the motion is GRANTED in part. Jain Inc. shall produce bank statements for accounts used in connection with the Springfield dental-office ventures involving Dr. Barnia during the period of his financial relationship with Jain Inc. Jain Inc. may redact transactions wholly unrelated to those ventures, Dr. Barnia, or Tyanna Yaman.
As to Request No. 3, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Although tax returns may be discoverable when relevant and the information is unavailable elsewhere, Plaintiffs have not shown at this time that Jain Inc.’s complete tax returns are necessary in addition to the bank records and other financial documents produced or ordered produced. Plaintiffs may renew the request upon a particularized showing that relevant information cannot reasonably be obtained from other sources. The parties shall confer regarding appropriate confidentiality protections for the financial records produced pursuant to this Order.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.