Not to be published in the official reports



Yüklə 342.63 Kb.
səhifə1/7
tarix30.08.2017
ölçüsü342.63 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Filed 2/20/13 Robin Singh Educ. Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN


ROBIN SINGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BLUEPRINT TEST PREPARATION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.


B204775 and B211422
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC330098, BC346066, BC347174)

ROBIN SINGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,


Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BLUEPRINT TEST PREPARATION, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.

B218775
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC330098, BC346066, BC347174)


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

(NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT)


THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 23, 2013 be modified as follows:

1. On page 3, the second sentence of the last paragraph, the name “Riley” is deleted and replaced with “Teti” so the sentence reads:

Defendants also appeal from the portion of the judgment awarding TestMasters damages for defamation against Triplett, Riley, and Blueprint, while Teti appeals from the punitive damages award against him.
2. On page 71, the sentence beginning with “TestMasters’ two expert witnesses, Singh and Rachel Vincent,” is modified to read:

Two of TestMasters’ expert witnesses, Singh and Rachel Vincent, TestMasters’ Director of Research and Development (LSAT score of 172, in the 99th percentile), gave their opinions that creating Blueprint’s course materials would have taken defendants or anyone else years to create and that defendants could not have developed their written course materials in the time they claim they did.


3. On page 86, footnote 46, the words “Singh’s girlfriend and” are to be inserted between the words “Naim,” and “in-house counsel” so the sentence reads:

46. At the jury trial Sharon Naim, Singh’s girlfriend and in-house counsel for TestMasters, testified that she sent over 100 cease and desist letters to TestMasters students, threatening to sue them if they sold their books on the Internet.

4. On page 108, the second sentence in the Disposition, “$592,260.45” is changed to “$703,410.65” so the sentence reads:

The January 24, 2008 order awarding TestMasters $703,410.65 in monetary sanctions is affirmed.
There is no change in judgment. Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc.’s petition for rehearing is denied.

___________________________________________________________________

PERLUSS, P. J. ZELON, J. SEGAL, J.*

Filed 1/23/13 Robin Singh Educ. Services v. Blueprint Test Preparation CA2/7 (unmodified version)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN



ROBIN SINGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BLUEPRINT TEST PREPARATION, LLC, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.


B204775 and B211422
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC330098, BC346066, BC347174)

ROBIN SINGH EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.,


Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
BLUEPRINT TEST PREPARATION, LLC et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.

B218775
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BC330098, BC346066, BC347174)



APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, William F. Highberger, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

Horvitz & Levy, H. Thomas Watson, Jeremy B. Rosen, Kris Bahr; Cotkin Law Group, Joan M. Cotkin; Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley, James C. Potepan, Susan H. Handelman, Courtney E. Curtis for Defendants and Appellants.

Horvitz & Levy, H. Thomas Watson, Jeremy B. Rosen, Kris Bahr; Knee, Ross & Silverman and Howard P. Knee for Defendant and Appellant.

Norminton, Wiita & Fuster, Thomas M. Norminton, Kathleen Dority Fuster; Tycko & Zavareei, Hassan A. Zavareei, Andrea R. Gold, Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Robin Meadow, Cynthia E. Tobisman, Lara M. Krieger; Zohar Law Firm and Daniel Yehuda Zohar, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________

As the importance of standardized tests has increased for admission to undergraduate and graduate schools, the business of preparing students to take those tests has flourished. This case arises out of the creation of a new Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) preparation business by five employees of one test preparation company who left to start a competing company. This professional move generated seven and a half years of litigation, including three and a half years of vigorously contested pretrial discovery and motions, a three-month trial, four appeals, and multiple writ proceedings.

Defendants Trent Teti, Matthew Riley, Justin Capuano, and Jodi Triplett (defendants), along with their colleague Courtney Martin, were LSAT preparation instructors employed by plaintiff Robin Singh Educational Services, Inc., doing business as TestMasters (TestMasters). They thought they could do better on their own. So in the fall of 2004 they began working on what would become in early 2005 a competing LSAT preparation course, defendant Blueprint Test Preparation, LLC (Blueprint). Much of the work they did in creating their new LSAT preparation course was on their personal computers. Because defendants did not want anyone to know that they were working on creating Blueprint in 2004 while they were still working for TestMasters, however, they were not very forthcoming in producing documents during discovery evidencing that they were working on Blueprint in 2004. This tactic generated lengthy and expensive controversies in discovery, especially when TestMasters’ forensic electronic discovery experts discovered documents in defendants’ computers from 2004 that defendants had not produced, and the trial court found that defendants had misused the discovery process.

Defendants’ discovery abuse resulted in considerable monetary and nonmonetary sanctions, which gave TestMasters a significant advantage at trial. On TestMasters’ main claims for breach of the duty of loyalty by an employee and breach of oral employment contract, the jury found in favor of TestMasters and against Blueprint and Teti, but in favor of the other defendants. The jury, however, awarded TestMasters only $183,000 of the $18 million in damages TestMasters had requested, plus $10,000 in punitive damages against Teti only. On TestMasters’ defamation claims, the jury awarded TestMasters a total of $45,000 against Triplett, Riley, and Blueprint.

In these three appeals, defendants appeal the pretrial orders imposing monetary and nonmonetary sanctions against them for misuse of the discovery process. TestMasters appeals from the judgment that awarded TestMasters much less than it had sought to recover. Defendants also appeal from the portion of the judgment awarding TestMasters damages for defamation against Triplett, Riley, and Blueprint, while Riley appeals from the punitive damages award against him. We affirm the trial court’s pretrial discovery sanctions orders, and, with the exception of the defamation claims, affirm the judgment.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə