Gonzales v. RDCo 44, LLC et al

Filing 51

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES 49 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TOM GONZALES,

9

Plaintiff,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

No. C 11-06265 SI
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES

v.
RDCO 44, LLC; MCCOVEY’S, INC.; MARIA
MARIA HOLDINGS, INC; JEFFERY DUDUM;
RICK DUDUM; ROCKY DUDUM; and DOES
1-20,
Defendants.

14

/

15
16
On October 9, 2012, defendants filed a letter brief requesting that the Court resolve several
17
discovery issues. Plaintiff Gonzales filed a response the next day. As directed at a subsequent case
18
management conference, the parties submitted further letters to the Court on November 2, 2012. The
19
Court has considered the papers submitted by the parties, and resolves the discovery issues as follows.
20
21
1.

Completing Plaintiff’s Deposition

22
Plaintiff Gonzales completed three hours of deposition testimony in California on September 27,
23
2012. The parties agreed that Gonzales would appear in California for further deposition testimony, but
24
have been unable to schedule that testimony. Plaintiff has suggested several dates in the middle or end
25
of November, and has represented that Gonzales will appear before the end of November. Therefore,
26
Tom Gonzales is ORDERED to appear in California to complete his deposition testimony no later than
27
November 30, 2012.
28

1

2.

Scheduling Other Depositions

2

Plaintiff and defendants have also struggled to schedule the depositions for other key witnesses.

3

Tom MacManus1 is a key witness both in his individual capacity and as the “most knowledgeable

4

person” for TG Investments, LLC. The parties have agreed to depose MacManus in Florida instead of

5

California, but have been unable to agree on a date. The week of November 18, 2012 has been

6

tentatively proposed, but there has not been a mutual agreement on the date of the deposition.

7

Accordingly, Tom MacManus is ORDERED to appear in Florida to provide deposition testimony no

8

later than November 25, 2012. The parties appear to have resolved their scheduling conflicts regarding

9

the depositions of other witnesses.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

3.

Plaintiff’s Lack of Written Responses

12

Defendants alleged that plaintiff has not provided all responsive documents to the Defendant

13

RDCo 44’s First Request for Production of Documents, served on June 22, 2012. Plaintiff agreed to

14

produce these documents no later than November 12, 2012. The parties have apparently resolved this

15

dispute on their own.

16
17

4.

Computer Servers

18

In a related case, California Bank & Trust is the judgment creditor for Dudum Sports

19

Entertainment (“DSE”) in a pending action in San Francisco Superior Court (10-CGC-496596). DSE

20

is central focus of this case. In the state court case, a Receiver has been appointed to control all former

21

DSE documents, including numerous computer servers. The parties have access to the documents, but

22

final possession has not yet been determined. Defendants only request that the Court order that the DSE

23

documents be preserved and made available, and plaintiff agrees with this request. Therefore, the Court

24

ORDERS that the DSE documents be preserved and made available to all parties in this action upon

25

reasonable notice.

26
27
28

1

In plaintiff’s letter, his last name is spelled McManus.
2

1

This resolves Docket Nos. 49 and 50.

2
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: November 14, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3