Where defendants charged with breaching a non-compete provision in an agreement for the sale of their grocery/liquor store requested a protective order, their motion to reconsider an order denying that request should be denied despite the defendants’ assertion that the bank records sought by the plaintiffs are not relevant.
“On July 14, 2020, Plaintiffs entered into a Purchase Agreement (‘Agreement’) with Defendants for the purpose of purchasing Defendants' grocery/liquor store. ... This agreement included a Covenant Not to Compete in which the parties agreed not to compete within a 5-mile radius for 5 years after closing. ... However, the Agreement explicitly states: ‘Notwithstanding the foregoing, the location at 2590 Puritan St., Detroit, Michigan is excluded from the Covenant Not to Compete.’
“Defendants continue to argue that the personal bank records of the individual Defendants are not relevant to the issues contained in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. Specifically, Defendants aver that there is no information in the personal bank records of Defendants Tanya Nissu (‘Tanya’) and Monthir Shaman Nissu (‘Monthir’) which would aid Plaintiffs in proving liability and damages. In response, Plaintiffs have argued that they believe there is hidden ownership of the selling liquor store and they believe the personal bank statements would prove this claim. At the hearing, Plaintiffs referred to a liquor store across the street from the purchased liquor store, alleging that there is some connection between it and the individual defendants.
“The Court determined that the records were relevant; Defendants have simply asked the Court to change its mind without making a valid legal argument regarding the objections it is raising. While Defendants cited to one court rule and one case from 1986 which discusses privileged communications and confidentiality but not the relevance of personal bank records in a case such as this, there is no application of any law to the facts of this case.
“Accordingly, the Court does not find that it palpably erred in denying Defendants' motion for protective order and declines to alter the disposition of that request.”
Bousheri v. Leo's Real Estate #3, LLC; MiLW 10-108018, 5 pages; Macomb Circuit Court; Caretti, J.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0