Landmark Equity Fund, II, LLC v. Arias

Filing 55

ORDER After Informal Telephonic Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/14/2016. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LANDMARK EQUITY FUND II, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JULIO ARIAS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00202 - JLT
ORDER AFTER INFORMAL TELEPHONIC
CONFERENCE
(Doc. 53)

16
At the request of counsel, on January 14, 2016, the Court held a telephonic conference

17
18

regarding a dispute over written discovery responses provided by Defendants. (Doc. 53) At the

19

conference, Defendants’ counsel agreed Defendants would provide supplemental responses to

20

Interrogatories 2, 6, 9-12 and 14.1 In addition to that discussed in more detail during the telephonic

21

conference, in particular, counsel for the parties agreed:
1.

22
23

Cecilio Rosales is the uncle of Juilo Arias;
2.

24
25

As to Interrogatory 2, Defendants will supplement their responses to explain that

As to Interrogatory 6, Defendants will supplement their responses to identify the person

to whom they believe they disclosed the oral agreement related to the real property (assuming they

26
27
28

1

The Court finds that Interrogatory 13 impermissibly seeks to required Defendants to make their expert disclosure earlier
that ordered by the Court. Thus, Defendants may but are not required to respond to Interrogatory 13. Rather, their
obligations, as well as the Plaintiff’s obligations, related to disclosure of experts is set forth in the scheduling order. (Doc.
37 at 2)

1

1

could locate the person’s business card and, if not, to provide their best recollection about this person).

2

They will also all terms2 of the oral agreement related to the real property and will clarify when they

3

entered into the oral agreement;
3.

4

As to Interrogatory 9, Defendants will supplement their responses to clarify that they

5

have no documents related to their oral agreement as to the real property and affirm that the agreement

6

was oral only;
4.

7

As to Interrogatory 10, Defendants will supplement their responses to set forth the

8

factual bases for the defenses they may assert at trial. They may note that their responses in no way

9

waives any error they believe may have occurred related to the Court striking some of their defenses

10

but must address the factual bases for any defenses still at issue;
5.

11

As to Interrogatory 11, Defendants will supplement their responses, consistent with

12

their responses to Interrogatory 6, as to any communication with any third party about the oral

13

agreement related to the real property;
6.

14
15

As to Interrogatory 14, Defendants will supplement their responses to indicate they

have no insurance that will satisfy all or part of a judgment in this action.
ORDER

16

Consistent with the discussion at the informal telephonic conference and the further detail

17
18

recited here, the Court ORDERS:
1.

19

Defendants SHALL make their absolute, best efforts to provide the verified

20

supplemental responses as soon as possible via e-mail. At the absolute latest, Defendants SHALL e-

21

mail to opposing counsel their verified supplemental responses by noon on January 20, 2016.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

January 14, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2

Defendants’ will clarify whether they had any agreement between the Defendants as to whether the Rosales Defendants
would obtain an equitable interest in the property.

2