Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. v. Toyama Partners, LLC et al

Filing 354

ORDER re #331 Letter Brief filed by Toyama Partners, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 11/03/2011. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

1
2
3

NOT FOR CITATION

4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

EUREKA DIVISION

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

No. CV 10-0325 SI (NJV)

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,
v.

(Doc. No. 331)

TOYAMA PARTNERS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

15
/
16
17
18
19

The district court has referred the parties’ discovery motions and all future discovery matters
to this Court for determination. Doc. Nos. 202, 248.
Defendants seek to compel the production of leases Plaintiff entered into within a 150-mile

20

radius of the Mowry Crossing Shopping Center for the last ten years, as well as all form and master

21

leases Plaintiff has used in California for the last six years. Doc. No. 331. Defendants argue the

22

documents are relevant both to the validity of the liquidated damages clause in the Amended Lease

23

and to Plaintiff’s claims of lost profits. Id. While relevancy for purposes of discovery is extremely

24

broad, Defendants’ requests are facially over-broad and unduly burdensome. First, Defendants have

25

not shown that other leases are relevant to the lost profit analysis for the Mowry Crossing store.

26

Second, Plaintiff has testified about how the liquidated damages provision in the Amended Lease

27

was calculated and why the highly profitable nature of the Mowry Crossing store required a different

28

liquidated damages provision than the “boilerplate” provision Plaintiff typically included in its

leases. See Doc. No. 347 (Declaration of Patrick Abramowich), Exs. 1- 4. Even if other leases

2

contained similar liquidated damages provisions, the similarity would not be relevant in and of itself

3

to determining whether the provision in the Amended Lease is arbitrary. See El Centro Mall, LLC v.

4

Payless Shoe-Source, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 58 (2009) (similar liquidated damages provision in

5

leases for other stores in same shopping center could give rise to an inference that provision was

6

arbitrary, but was not conclusive in the absence of evidence allowing detailed analysis of

7

circumstances surrounding other leases). Defendants did not seek to meaningfully limit their

8

discovery requests to Dollar Tree stores that are not similarly situated or to Dollar Tree leases with

9

the same liquidated damages provision, but instead served discovery requests demanding production

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

of all leases Plaintiff entered into within 150-mile radius in the last ten years and all form and master

11

lease agreements used in California for the last six years.

12

The Court therefore denies Defendants’ motion to compel in part and grants it in part.

13

Within ten court days of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce the leases for any other Dollar Tree store

14

within a 150-mile radius of the Mowry Crossing Dollar Tree store that contain reasonably similar

15

(within $500) liquidated damages provisions. Plaintiff may redact the leases of proprietary and

16

confidential information, but should provide sufficient information regarding the store size, store

17

location and amount of liquidated damages to allow Defendants to meaningfully interpret the

18

similarity or dissimilarity of the lease to the Amended Lease.

19
Dated: November 3, 2011
20
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2