Schoenmann v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Filing 146

Discovery Order re Joint Letter #141 . Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 1/23/14. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

E. LYNN SCHOENMANN,

Case No. 10-cv-03989-CRB (MEJ)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

DISCOVERY ORDER

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 141

Defendants.

12
13

On November 26, 2013, Plaintiff/Chapter 7 Trustee E. Lynn Schoenmann and Defendants

14

FDIC-Receiver and FDIC-Corporate filed a joint letter detailing a discovery dispute over a notice

15

of deposition and subpoena to take the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of "The Bankruptcy Estate of

16

UCBH Holdings, Inc." Jnt. Ltr., Dkt. No. 141. Defendants request that the Court compel the

17

UCBH bankruptcy estate to make a witness available for a deposition in which the witness shall

18

be prepared to testify on the topics set forth in the Rule 30(b)(6) notice. Id. at 3. The Trustee

19

opposes the request and seeks a protective order precluding the deposition and quashing the

20

subpoena. Id. at 5. Particularly, the Trustee argues that the Defendants are essentially seeking to

21

have the Court reconsider its May 2, 2013 ruling that the Trustee is not a proper party to whom a

22

30(b)(6) notice should be directed by 30(b)(6). Id. at 3-4. While Defendants do state that they

23

disagree with the Court's prior ruling, as Defendants point out, the instant dispute differs from the

24

one the Court previously addressed, in that, Defendants' 30(b)(6) notice is now directed at the

25

UCBH bankruptcy estate. Id. at 2. Thus, the Court's ruling that the Trustee is not the proper target

26

of a 30(b)(6) deposition notice stands.

27
28

The parties' instant dispute concerns whether the UCBH bankruptcy estate is a proper party
for a 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint establishes that

1

the UCBH bankruptcy estate is an entity that is the real party in interest as plaintiff. Id. at 2 (citing

2

Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 268-79, 284-85, 320-23.) Defendants assert that, "[i]f the Trustee cannot be

3

deposed under Rule 30(b)(6) because she is not an 'entity,' then the estate on whose behalf she is

4

suing certainly can be." Id. at 2-3.

5

The Trustee, however, contends that the bankruptcy estate "is not a 'relevant corporate

6

entity' subject to a 30(b)(6) deposition any more than the Trustee was one . . . [i]t is simply a

7

collection of property interests." Id. at 4 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 541). The Trustee further argues that

8

the estate is not a party to this lawsuit; "[r]ather it is the Trustee, who is herself obviously just a

9

'person.'" Id. (citing 11 U.S.C. § 701).

10

After carefully considering the parties' arguments and reviewing their cited authorities, the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Court agrees with Defendants that the Bankruptcy Estate of UCBH Holdings, Inc. may be the

12

proper entity for a 30(b)(6) notice. The Trustee, as representative for the Bankruptcy Estate, must

13

designate one or more persons to testify about information known or reasonably available to the

14

Estate no later than February 3, 2014.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: January 23, 2014
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2