California Legal Brief

The Rule of Jogani v. Jogani is that an expert's undisclosed opinion regarding lost profits cannot be admitted at trial without prior disclosure, under circumstances where the opinion concerns a specific damages calculation ($1.98 billion in alleged lost investment profits) that was never disclosed in discovery.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellants were Haresh Jogani, H.K. Realty, Inc., J.K. Properties, Inc., Commonwealth Investments, Inc., Moorepark Holdings Limited, Gilu Investments Limited, and Akshi Investments Limited — defendants in a multi-billion dollar partnership dispute who denied the existence of oral diamond and real estate partnerships.

Plaintiff Respondent was Shashikant Jogani — the brother who sued for his rightful share of the real estate partnership after being locked out by Haresh.

The suit sounded in breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and dissolution of partnership. Cross-claims were filed by Rajesh and Chetan Jogani for their respective partnership shares in both partnerships.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that five brothers formed oral partnerships - first four brothers in a diamond business (1972), then in 1995 all five brothers partnered in real estate with Shashi contributing his existing $375 million portfolio and the others providing $43 million in loans at 12% interest. After Shashi repaid the debt in 2001, Haresh refused to acknowledge Shashi's 50% partnership interest, locked him out, and denied any partnerships existed.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court entered judgment awarding approximately $6.85 billion after a five-month jury trial, ruling that the partnerships existed and awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Shashi, Rajesh, and Chetan.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1) Whether the court erred in various evidentiary rulings regarding document production failures, hearsay testimony, attorney testimony, and expert witness opinions; 2) Whether jury instructions on statute of limitations and offset defenses were proper.

The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion only in admitting Shashi's expert's undisclosed opinion that real estate investments would have appreciated to $1.98 billion if not sold during the 2008 crisis, but otherwise properly managed the complex evidentiary issues in this long-running partnership dispute.

The case is inapplicable when expert opinions have been properly disclosed prior to trial, or when the challenged evidence does not relate to specific undisclosed damage calculations of this magnitude.

The case leaves open questions about the scope of discovery sanctions in complex partnership cases and the precise boundaries of attorney-client privilege waiver in joint representation situations.