Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-06232
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
400 County Center 1050 Mission Road
Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080
www.sanmateocourt.org
Minute Order
BOOTUP VENTURES, LLC, et al vs. TARUN GAUR, et al 18-CIV-06232
08/30/2021 2:00 PM
Motion to Compel Further
Hearing Result: Held
Judicial Officer: Swope, V. Raymond Location: Courtroom 8A
Courtroom Clerk: Maureen Boesch Courtroom Reporter: Geraldine Vandeveld
Parties Present
Exhibits
Minutes
Journals
- -All appearances VIA ZOOM:
Attorney DAVID P. NEMECEK JR appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Boostscare and Bootup Ventures, LLC.
Defendant TARUN GAUR appeared as a Pro Per.
Attorneys Dourglas Akay and Elsa Berry from Akay Law appeared as observers (previously represented
Defendants Dial2buy.com, LLC, Tarun Gaur, Jinigram, LLC.)
Mr. Nemecek addresssed the Court.
Ms. Berry responded.
Both sides submitted to the Court.
The Court advised all parties that it had considered all arguments and the Court's Tentative Ruling
stands.
Case Events
- Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BootUp Ventures, LLC's
Motion to Compel, filed
5-17-21, which pertains to BootUp's original sets of Request for Production of Documents, Special
Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission to Defendants/Cross-Complainants Tarun Gaur, Jinigram,
LLC, and Dial2Buy.com LLC, is DENIED.
Commission Halperin's 3-30-21 IDC Minute Order made clear that the parties were required to
participate in another meet and confer "at least two weeks" before the stated May 15, 2021 deadline for
filing another motion to compel. To be meaningful, this Court-ordered meet and confer was obviously
going to be lengthy and would require preparation, because this discovery dispute involves hundreds of
discovery requests. Comm. Halperin's purpose in insisting on another meet and confer was clearly in
1
Case Number: 18-CIV-06232
hopes the parties would resolve some issues and significantly narrow the dispute so that any motion
practice would be reasonably in scope.
The record shows that the moving party, BootUp Ventures, LLC, did not make an adequate effort to
comply with Commissioner Halperin's 3-30-21 Order. See 5-17-21 Nemecek Decl., Parag. 24-26; 8-17-21
Berry Decl., Parag. 5-11.
Following the 3-30-21 IDC, the attorneys exchanged emails on March 31, 2021. Id. Defendant Gaur et.
al.'s counsel (Ms. Berry) offered March 26th, 27th, or 28th as available dates for the Court-ordered meet
and confer conference. Id. These proposed dates would have complied with Comm. Halperin's Order
(they were more than two weeks before the May 15 filing deadline). BootUp's counsel (Mr. Nemecek)
responded on April 7 and 8, insisting on a conference before April 12, stating he did not believe Ms.
Berry did not have time for a "third second
conference call" before April 26. Id. Ms. Berry immediately responded, stating she had a busy calendar
in April and also needed additional time to prepare for what would clearly be an extensive discussion,
given the overwhelming number of discovery requests. Id. She also stated she needed to speak with
her clients. Id. Berry again offered the March 26-28 dates. BootUp's counsel ignored this request and
after March 12, did not respond again until May 10, just days before the filing deadline, by which time it
was already well past the meet and confer deadline imposed by Comm. Halperin. Thus, with no meet
and confer having taking place, BootUp filed the present motion on May 17, 2021 (two days after the
stated May 15 deadline).
By any objective measure, BootUp did not make sufficient effort to participate in any meaningful meet
and confer in April, as Comm. Halperin expressly ordered. The prior version of this motion, which the
Court denied without prejudice because BootUp had not requested or participated in an IDC, consisted
of about 1,800 pages. Since then, the scope of the dispute has apparently grown rather than narrowed,
because the current motion now consists of over 3,000 pages, and involves several hundred discovery
requests (document requests, special interrogatories, and requests for production). Yet BootUp planned
to have a "thirty second telephone conference" to try to resolve and/or narrow the dispute before
engaging in motion practice. If these facts demonstrate an adequate meet and confer, then the meet
and confer requirement has no meaning at all.
All requests for sanctions are DENIED.
Going forward, the parties are advised to focus their attention on the discovery and issues that truly
matter to the case. The Court retains its right to sanction any party failing to participate in good faith
meet and confer discussions, or filing motions in bad faith. And presenting the Court with thousands of
pages of documents to review on a single motion is ill-advised.
On a different note, on 8-20-21, attorney Douglas Akay, former counsel for the opposing parties (Tarun
Gaur, Jinigram, LLC, and Dial2Buy.com LLC), substituted out of the case, leaving Mr. Gaur to represent
himself and, purportedly, the two LLCs. It is unclear whether Mr. Gaur is an attorney. If he is not, he
can represent himself, but he cannot represent the LLCs. Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199.
The LLCs are advised to seek and obtain new counsel forthwith.
Defendants/Cross-Complainant's unopposed 8-17-21 Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Evid. Code
Sect. 452(d).
Others
Comments:
Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings
August 31, 2021 3:00 PM Informal Discovery Conference
2
Case Number: 18-CIV-06232
Courtroom P
Ouranitsas, Eresmia
Halperin, Ernst A.
September 10, 2021 2:00 PM Case Management and Trial Setting Conference
Swope, V. Raymond
Courtroom 8A
December 06, 2021 2:00 PM Hearing on Demurrer
Swope, V. Raymond
December 06, 2021 2:00 PM Motion to Strike
Swope, V. Raymond
3
Preview
Case Number: 18-CIV-06232 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 400 County Center 1050 Mission Road Redwood City, CA 94063 South San Francisco, CA 94080 www.sanmateocourt.org Minute Order BOOTUP VENTURES, LLC, et al vs. TARUN GAUR, et al 18-CIV-06232 08/30/2021 2:00 PM Motion to Compel Further Hearing Result: Held Judicial Officer: Swope, V. Raymond Location: Courtroom 8A Courtroom Clerk: Maureen Boesch Courtroom Reporter: Geraldine Vandeveld Parties Present Exhibits Minutes Journals - -All appearances VIA ZOOM: Attorney DAVID P. NEMECEK JR appeared on behalf of Plaintiff Boostscare and Bootup Ventures, LLC. Defendant TARUN GAUR appeared as a Pro Per. Attorneys Dourglas Akay and Elsa Berry from Akay Law appeared as observers (previously represented Defendants Dial2buy.com, LLC, Tarun Gaur, Jinigram, LLC.) Mr. Nemecek addresssed the Court. Ms. Berry responded. Both sides submitted to the Court. The Court advised all parties that it had considered all arguments and the Court's Tentative Ruling stands. Case Events - Tentative ruling adopted and becomes order:; Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant BootUp Ventures, LLC's Motion to Compel, filed 5-17-21, which pertains to BootUp's original sets of Request for Production of Documents, Special Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission to Defendants/Cross-Complainants Tarun Gaur, Jinigram, LLC, and Dial2Buy.com LLC, is DENIED. Commission Halperin's 3-30-21 IDC Minute Order made clear that the parties were required to participate in another meet and confer "at least two weeks" before the stated May 15, 2021 deadline for filing another motion to compel. To be meaningful, this Court-ordered meet and confer was obviously going to be lengthy and would require preparation, because this discovery dispute involves hundreds of discovery requests. Comm. Halperin's purpose in insisting on another meet and confer was clearly in 1 Case Number: 18-CIV-06232 hopes the parties would resolve some issues and significantly narrow the dispute so that any motion practice would be reasonably in scope. The record shows that the moving party, BootUp Ventures, LLC, did not make an adequate effort to comply with Commissioner Halperin's 3-30-21 Order. See 5-17-21 Nemecek Decl., Parag. 24-26; 8-17-21 Berry Decl., Parag. 5-11. Following the 3-30-21 IDC, the attorneys exchanged emails on March 31, 2021. Id. Defendant Gaur et. al.'s counsel (Ms. Berry) offered March 26th, 27th, or 28th as available dates for the Court-ordered meet and confer conference. Id. These proposed dates would have complied with Comm. Halperin's Order (they were more than two weeks before the May 15 filing deadline). BootUp's counsel (Mr. Nemecek) responded on April 7 and 8, insisting on a conference before April 12, stating he did not believe Ms. Berry did not have time for a "third second conference call" before April 26. Id. Ms. Berry immediately responded, stating she had a busy calendar in April and also needed additional time to prepare for what would clearly be an extensive discussion, given the overwhelming number of discovery requests. Id. She also stated she needed to speak with her clients. Id. Berry again offered the March 26-28 dates. BootUp's counsel ignored this request and after March 12, did not respond again until May 10, just days before the filing deadline, by which time it was already well past the meet and confer deadline imposed by Comm. Halperin. Thus, with no meet and confer having taking place, BootUp filed the present motion on May 17, 2021 (two days after the stated May 15 deadline). By any objective measure, BootUp did not make sufficient effort to participate in any meaningful meet and confer in April, as Comm. Halperin expressly ordered. The prior version of this motion, which the Court denied without prejudice because BootUp had not requested or participated in an IDC, consisted of about 1,800 pages. Since then, the scope of the dispute has apparently grown rather than narrowed, because the current motion now consists of over 3,000 pages, and involves several hundred discovery requests (document requests, special interrogatories, and requests for production). Yet BootUp planned to have a "thirty second telephone conference" to try to resolve and/or narrow the dispute before engaging in motion practice. If these facts demonstrate an adequate meet and confer, then the meet and confer requirement has no meaning at all. All requests for sanctions are DENIED. Going forward, the parties are advised to focus their attention on the discovery and issues that truly matter to the case. The Court retains its right to sanction any party failing to participate in good faith meet and confer discussions, or filing motions in bad faith. And presenting the Court with thousands of pages of documents to review on a single motion is ill-advised. On a different note, on 8-20-21, attorney Douglas Akay, former counsel for the opposing parties (Tarun Gaur, Jinigram, LLC, and Dial2Buy.com LLC), substituted out of the case, leaving Mr. Gaur to represent himself and, purportedly, the two LLCs. It is unclear whether Mr. Gaur is an attorney. If he is not, he can represent himself, but he cannot represent the LLCs. Vann v. Shilleh (1975) 54 Cal.App.3d 192, 199. The LLCs are advised to seek and obtain new counsel forthwith. Defendants/Cross-Complainant's unopposed 8-17-21 Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Evid. Code Sect. 452(d). Others Comments: Future Hearings and Vacated Hearings August 31, 2021 3:00 PM Informal Discovery Conference 2 Case Number: 18-CIV-06232 Courtroom P Ouranitsas, Eresmia Halperin, Ernst A. September 10, 2021 2:00 PM Case Management and Trial Setting Conference Swope, V. Raymond Courtroom 8A December 06, 2021 2:00 PM Hearing on Demurrer Swope, V. Raymond December 06, 2021 2:00 PM Motion to Strike Swope, V. Raymond 3