41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC

Background

The dispute concerns the parties’ agreement and a fire-suppression system that allegedly created sound or noise affecting the purchaser’s quiet enjoyment and use of a unit. The agreement required the plaintiff to take “all reasonable measures” to ensure that the system did not create such noise.

The parties disagreed about the scope of testimony that could be sought during a deposition. The plaintiff argued that evidence concerning the defendant’s motive was relevant to its breach-of-contract claim. The provided text also reports the defendant’s position that some topics were barred, including because the plaintiff’s second cause of action had been dismissed and because the defendant had not terminated the agreement.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff could obtain deposition testimony concerning Topics 7, 11, 12, and 15, including evidence about the defendant’s complaints and motive.

Ruling and reasoning

The court held that evidence of the defendant’s motive was relevant insofar as it could indicate that the defendant unreasonably exercised discretion under the agreement. Evidence that the defendant’s complaints about noise were made in bad faith could also bear on whether the plaintiff was complying with the agreement when the defendant allegedly breached it.

The court therefore ruled that the plaintiff may elicit deposition testimony concerning Topics 7, 11, 12, and 15. The order ends with “So Ordered.” It is a discovery ruling, not a ruling resolving the underlying contract claims in the provided text.