Gazian et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA et al

Filing 221

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 213 Motion to Continue; granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 213 Motion for Sanctions. Telephonic hearing 6/5/2015 at 4:00 PM. Status conference set foro 9/4/2015 at 3:30 PM. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 5/29/2015.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ken Gazian, et al.,

No. CV-13-01312-PHX-DGC
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Wells Fargo Bank NA,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

Two days before the final pretrial conference, Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the

17

Court to reopen discovery and to sanction Defendant Wells Fargo. Doc. 213. Plaintiffs

18

base their motion on emails that Wells Fargo recently produced. They argue that the

19

emails are key evidence in support of their claim that Wells Fargo committed fraud, and

20

that the emails should have been produced earlier. After reviewing the parties’ briefing

21

on this issue, the Court will allow limited additional discovery as set forth below.

22

I.

Background.

23

Plaintiffs in this case are Ken Gazian, Pierre Investments, Inc., and Aragadz

24

Foods, Inc., d/b/a Devanche Jewelers. Gazian is a Texas resident and both Pierre and

25

Devanche are Texas corporations wholly owned by Gazian. Plaintiffs originally brought

26

this action against Wells Fargo, Kelly & Kelly PC, and Hubert Kelly based on an

27

allegedly fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the Kelly Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that

28

$80,000 was transferred to the Kelly Defendants’ Wells Fargo account for the “purchase

1

of securities allegedly posted on the London Stock Exchange.” Doc. 101, ¶ 10. The

2

securities transaction was represented “as having a total value in excess of $45,000,000,”

3

and Plaintiffs were to receive “a return of $280,000.” Id.

4

Plaintiffs allege that they “sought assurance from Wells Fargo” that the Kelly

5

Defendants were legitimate business people and were in the process of putting together a

6

large securities transaction. Id. Wells Fargo employees from a branch in Mesa, Arizona

7

allegedly represented to Plaintiffs “on multiple occasions that there was a transaction

8

being put together for the purchase of the securities, that funds were present for the

9

purchase of securities, and that Wells Fargo had undertaken numerous successful

10

transactions” with the Kelly Defendants. Id., ¶ 11.

11

Plaintiffs assert that they were convinced by the Kelly Defendants in October 2011

12

to reinvest $250,000 of the promised $280,000 to “fund a $5,000,000 loan to purchase

13

and renovate the Park Plaza Tower,” an office building in Dallas. Id., ¶ 16. Plaintiffs

14

also agreed to pay an additional $50,000 to fund the transaction. Id. Plaintiffs assert that

15

on November 29, 2011, when they attempted to withdraw $30,000 and transfer $250,000

16

to the Kelly Defendants as agreed, they “were informed by Wells Fargo that the accounts

17

had been emptied and that Wells Fargo would not transfer any amount to Plaintiffs

18

pursuant to the Irrevocable Commitment.” Id., ¶ 21.

19

The Court dismissed the Kelly Defendants from this case pursuant to stipulation.

20

Docs. 58, 151. The primary claims that remain are Plaintiffs’ claims that Wells Fargo

21

knowingly or negligently made false representations to Plaintiffs that the Kelly

22

Defendants were “reputable businessmen” and that their transactions were “legitimate.”

23

Doc. 101, ¶¶ 30-63.

24

III.

Relevancy of the Email.

25

On February 10, 2015, more than eight months after the close of discovery, Wells

26

Fargo disclosed to Plaintiffs a set of emails. Plaintiffs argue that one of these emails,

27

from Patrick Brown, strongly supports their claim that Wells Fargo committed fraud by

28

failing to inform them that transactions with the Kelly Defendants were suspect. The

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

email states:
From: BROWN, Patrick [Wells Fargo]
Sent: Tue 8/2/2011 5:36:42 PM
Re: HSBC Bank Guarantee Registration Number BH5843[.]
I have conducted a review on the signor, Craig Cason, for this account,
[redacted]7443 – Increase Capital Investments LLC and found several
items of concern . . .
 This individual has been investigated by the SEC for securities
violations and accusations of fraud.
 The address on the account is a virtual office that can be rented for
$50/month, used frequently by shell companies to give the
appearance of legitimacy even though no actual business is
conducted there.
 The client has filed multiple bankruptcies and has several
outstanding judgments (some in excess of $100K), which is not
consistent with someone purporting to have $250mil in assets.
Please do not process the receipt of this security. We will be restricting the
account and referring the matter to our Security Fraud group. Additionally,
please DO NOT disclose this information to the client or the outcome of
our review. Please advise the client that we cannot assist him with his
request.

15
16

Doc. 213-3 at 2. The parties disagree on the relevance of this email. Plaintiffs argue that

17

the Brown email proves Wells Fargo knew the securities transaction underlying

18

Plaintiffs’ deal with the Kelly Defendants was fraudulent. Wells Fargo argues that the

19

email concerns a securities transaction different from the transaction that formed the basis

20

for Plaintiffs’ deal with the Kelly Defendants, and that Wells Fargo produced the email

21

only out of an abundance of caution.

22

Although the Court cannot conclude at this stage that the email from Patrick

23

Brown concerned the securities transaction underlying Plaintiffs’ deal with the Kelly

24

Defendants, the email is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Wells Fargo employee Randy

25

Lucero was a recipient of the Brown email. Lucero was also the person who talked with

26

Plaintiffs about their concerns regarding the propriety of transactions with the Kelly

27

Defendants. The email suggests that an affiliate of the Kelly Defendants in a securities

28

transaction (Cason) may be a shady character.

-3-

Lucero’s knowledge of this fact is

1

relevant to whether he should, as Plaintiffs allege, have assured them that the Kelly

2

Defendants were engaged in a legitimate transaction. In addition, a separate email sent

3

by the Kelly Defendants to Lucero uses the same HSBC Bank registration number

4

mentioned in the Brown email, suggesting that the Brown email may in fact have been

5

addressing the same transaction that formed the basis for Plaintiffs’ deal with the Kelly

6

Defendants. Doc. 213-4 at 8.

7

The email is probative of Plaintiffs’ claim that Wells Fargo knew the Kelly

8

Defendants’ business dealings were not legitimate. The email and related documents

9

should have been disclosed by Wells Fargo during discovery in this case. The email is

10

responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production No. 4 (“All documents evidencing your

11

relationship with Kelly & Kelly, Kelly, or Miko Wady, including all documents

12

identified by you in your response to Plaintiff Ken Gazian’s interrogatory No. 5-7”), and

13

No. 18 (“All documents evidencing any investigations, background checks . . . or due

14

diligence you performed on Hubert Kelly, Kelly & Kelly . . . or anyone else involved in

15

the Transactions[.]”). Doc. 213 at 11. In addition, interrogatories requested a description

16

the Kelly Defendants’ transaction history with Wells Fargo and included a request to

17

identify all employees and documents involved in these transactions. Doc. 213-8 at 6.

18

IV.

Remedy.

19

Plaintiffs ask the Court to reopen discovery so that they may depose the recipients

20

of this email about its contents. Alternatively or additionally, Plaintiffs ask the Court to

21

admit the relevant emails into evidence over Defendant’s objections and to sanction

22

Wells Fargo by striking its agency defense.

23

A motion to reopen discovery is a motion to modify the discovery deadline set in

24

the Court’s scheduling order. Rule 16(b)(4) permits a scheduling order to be modified

25

only on a showing of good cause. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

26

604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs have shown good cause for reopening discovery.

27

Defendants did not disclose a relevant piece of evidence until February 10, 2015, more

28

-4-

1

than eight months after the close of discovery.1

2

The Court finds that a limited reopening of discovery is appropriate. The Court

3

will permit Plaintiffs to conduct up to 5 additional depositions totaling no more than 20

4

hours of deposition time. These may include a further deposition is Randy Lucero if

5

Plaintiffs elect to re-depose him. Wells Fargo shall cooperate with Plaintiffs in arranging

6

these depositions, including contacting witnesses and arranging for their appearances, if

7

necessary.

8

production requests (including subparts) and 10 additional interrogatories (including

9

subparts). These additional written discovery requests shall be served within 14 days of

10

this order. The additional depositions and written discovery may inquire into the steps

11

Wells Fargo took to preserve emails sent to and from Lucero.

The Court will also permit Plaintiffs to serve 10 additional document

12

This additional discovery shall be completed, including all Wells Fargo responses

13

to the additional written discovery, by August 28, 2015. The parties shall place a joint

14

conference call to the Court on June 5, 2015, at 4:00 p.m., to set a firm trial date. The

15

Court plans to complete the trial of this case before the end of 2015. The Court will hold

16

a status conference on September 4, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., to discuss any further issues that

17

must be resolved before trial.

18

The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not made the showing necessary for the

19

harsh sanction of striking Wells Fargo’s agency defense. Plaintiffs have not shown the

20

connection between the alleged senior officers, the transaction at issue in this case, and

21

Wells Fargo itself. Nor have Plaintiffs shown that Wells Fargo’s late disclosure of the

22

email was willful. The Court will not order that the newly disclosed documents are

23

admissible, although Plaintiffs may certainly assert their admissibility at trial.

24
25
26
27
1

28

Wells Fargo argues that Plaintiffs failed to depose Bill Gilligan when afforded
the opportunity, but Plaintiffs did not know the information contained in the laterdisclosed email – information that would have made Gilligan’s deposition more relevant.
-5-

1
2
3

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to re-open discovery and for sanctions
(Doc. 213) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2015.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-