Anthony Fredianelli v. Stephan Jenkins et al

Filing 152

ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/6/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
STEPHAN JENKINS, et al.,
4
Plaintiffs,

Case No. C11-0211 EMC
and Related Case
Case No. C11-3232 EMC

5
v.
6
THOMAS IRVING MANDELBAUM, et al.,
7
8

Defendants.
___________________________________/
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, etc.,

9
Counter-Claimant,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
STEPHAN JENKINS, et al.,
12
13

Counter-Defendants.
___________________________________/
ANTHONY FREDIANELLI,

14
Plaintiff,

Related Case
Case No. C11-3232 EMC

15
v.
16
STEPHAN JENKINS, et al.,
17
18

Defendants.
___________________________________/

ORDER COMPELLING
DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND
RULE 26 INITIAL DISCLOSURE

19
20

This Court presided over a case management conference in the Anthony Fredianelli v.

21

Stephan Jenkins, et al. case on August 24, 2012. This conference followed a July 13, 2012 order of

22

this Court which provided, among other things, that Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli was required to

23

serve responses to the request for production of documents, set one, served on him by Defendants

24

Stephan Jenkins, et al., and to produce documents in response to that request, by August 3, 2012.

25
26
27
28

This Court finds that Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli has not complied with the Order regarding
response to request for documents, and the order to produce documents.
This Court also finds that Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli has not served his FRCP Rule 26
Initial Disclosures in a timely fashion.

1
2
3

The Court ordered at the hearing and hereby memoralizes that order in the Anthony
Fredianelli v. Stephan Jenkins et al. case as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli shall serve responses to Defendant Stephan Jenkins, et

4

al.’s request for production of document, and to produce documents, by no later than

5

August 31, 2012. If both responses, and production of documents, have not been

6

made by this date, this Court will enter an evidentiary preclusion order, precluding

7

Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli from using in this case, for any purpose, including in

8

connection with any motions and at trial, any documents which were responsive to the

9

request for production of documents and which should have been produced in

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

response to said request, but were not timely produced as ordered;
2.

Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli is to serve his Rule 26 Initial Disclosures by no later than

12

August 31, 2012. If said Initial Disclosures are not served by this date, this Court shall

13

enter an evidentiary preclusion order, precluding Plaintiff Anthony Fredianelli from

14

using in this case, for any purpose, including in connection with any motions and at

15

trial, the testimony of any witnesses whose identities should have been provided in

16

compliance with FRCP 26 (a)(1)(A)(i) as ordered herein;

17

3.

The close of non-expert discovery is extended to all parties in the Anthony Fredianelli

18

v. Stephan Jenkins et al. case to November 30, 2012. All other pre-trial dates set by

19

the Court, including the trial date, remain unchanged.

20

4.

Consistent with this Court’s Order Re: Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to Amend

21

Complaint, dated August 14, 2012, this Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to

22

Amend Complaint, and orders that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is the

23

operative complaint in the Anthony Fredianelli v. Stephan Jenkins, et al. action, and

24

that said First Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: September 6, 2012

_____________________________
Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge

27
28

2