Sussex Financial Enterprises, Inc. v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG et al

Filing 180

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 171 Objections to Order to compel; granting in part and denying in part 172 Motion for Relief; finding as moot 174 Motion to Shorten Time (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUSSEX FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BAYERISCHE HYPO-UND VEREINSBANK AG, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 08-4791 SC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S ORDER; GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection to a discovery order entered by a magistrate in this matter -- the second such objection filed by Plaintiff in less than a month. ("Objection"). Docket No. 171

By an Order dated March 2, 2010, the magistrate to

whom all discovery matters have been assigned granted Defendants' motion to compel two further depositions, and to require Plaintiff to produce documents related to its finances and tax information. Docket No. 170 ("Magistrate's Order"). Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Relief from the Status Conference Order ("Motion"), Docket No. 172, to which Plaintiff has filed an Opposition, Docket No. 178. Having

considered all of the papers submitted by both parties, this Court concludes that the issues presented by Plaintiff's Objection and Defendants' Motion are appropriate for determination without oral argument.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

As to Plaintiff's Objection, the Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate's Order and adopts it in full. The Magistrate's Order

fairly and persuasively explains the relevance of the material that Defendants seek to compel, and the role that it could plausibly play in establishing a defense to Plaintiff's claims. Because

Plaintiff is claiming that it was innocent and unaware of the fraud that it alleges Defendants were perpetrating upon Plaintiff and its clients, Plaintiff's tax information and the tax information of its two sole shareholders is highly probative as to whether Plaintiff was aware of the admittedly wrongful activity at the time it occurred. Plaintiff's Objection is based on legal arguments that this Court finds spurious. For example, Plaintiff argues that this

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Court lacks original jurisdiction in this matter, and assumes jurisdiction solely on the basis of the parties' diversity. Objection at 2-3. However, as noted in the Magistrate's Order,

this Court has original jurisdiction based upon Plaintiff's RICO claims. Plaintiff cites case law that establishes that such claims

"may" be heard in state court as well as federal court, however this is simply not a reasonable basis for arguing that a federal court does not have original jurisdiction over RICO claims, especially where RICO's provisions explicitly state that any aggrieved party "may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court . . . ." 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The existence of

concurrent jurisdiction by the state courts does not destroy original jurisdiction in this Court. Similarly, Plaintiff presents novel arguments, not presented to the magistrate, that state law should control this discovery

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

dispute because "Defendant's discovery was directed to Plaintiff's state law fraud claims." Objection at 4. Even if this Court were

to entertain this argument, Plaintiff is incorrect in that its RICO questions are invariably intertwined with its fraud-based claims. Plaintiff is seeking treble damages that are ultimately premised upon these state law claims, as predicates to its RICO claim, and this Court cannot reasonably discount federal law in reaching the discovery issues that surround them. The Court is therefore convinced that the Magistrate's Order was correct in its reasoning and conclusion. The Court is also

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

persuaded that counsel for Plaintiff was not faultless in its delay in providing the contested information, and it concludes that there would be no harm in allowing the parties additional time to prepare their summary judgment motions in light of the new evidence that Defendants seek. For this reason, the final hearing date for All motions must be filed in However, this Court is not

motions is extended to June 25, 2010. accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2.

persuaded that this development warrants further delay in the previously established trial date. All other dates, including the

final deadline for trial briefs and pretrial statements, the pretrial conference, and the trial date of August 2, 2010, remain undisturbed by this Order. Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time,

Docket No. 174, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3