Soares v. Lorono et al

Filing 197

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL by Hon. William H. Orrick denying 181 Motion to Compel. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PAUL F. SOARES,

Case No. 12-cv-05979-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

9
10

JEFFREY LORONO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 181

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court is plaintiff Paul Soares’ Motion to Compel. Dkt. No. 181. Soares claims

13

that defendants Jeffrey Lorono, Lisa Lorono, SVR, Inc., and Salinas Valley Roofing, Inc.

14

(“Defendants”) have not complied with Civil Local Rule 3-16, which requires each party to file a

15

“Certification of Interested Entities or Persons” that discloses “any persons, associations of

16

persons, firms, partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations), or other entities other

17

than the parties themselves known to the party to have . . . a financial interest (of any kind) in the

18

subject matter in controversy.” Civ. L.R. 3-16(b)(1).

19

Soares’ Motion to Compel claims that the Defendants have failed to disclose: (1) that the

20

Defendants’ attorney allegedly has a conflict of interest because defendant Salinas Valley Roofing

21

assigned “litigation rights and financial outcomes” to him by when it dissolved; (2) the ownership

22

of a company named Village Heating and Sheet Metal allegedly owned by Defendant Adolpho

23

Rangel; and (b) the ownership interests of defendants Jeffrey Lorono and Lisa Lorono in Salinas

24

Valley Roofing, Inc. and SVR, Inc. Dkt. Nos. 181 at 2; 193 at 2.

25

Soares asserts that he has requested the information in discovery, but Defendants have not

26

properly answered his discovery requests. Dkt. No. 193 at 2-3. The Motion to Compel requests

27

an order directing the Defendants to file the certification and to pay sanctions in the amount of

28

$1,000 for failure to comply with local rules. Dkt. No 181 at at 2-3. After the Motion to Compel

1

was filed, Defendants filed a certification in the form prescribed by Local Rule 3-16. Dkt. No.

2

187.

3

The Motion to Compel is moot because the Defendants have filed the required certification

4

under rule 3-16. Dkt. No. 187. Although it was filed late, the Court does not find that sanctions

5

are necessary.

6

Local Rule 3-16 is not a tool for discovery. “Rule 3-16 exists so that ‘[j]udges of this

7

Court may evaluate any need for disqualification or recusal.’” Vedatech, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire &

8

Marine Ins. Co., No. 04-1249 VRW, 2008 WL 2790200 at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2008) aff'd sub

9

nom. Subramanian v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 494 F. App'x 817 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Civ. L.
R. 3-16(a)). There are other ways to bring a discovery dispute to the Court’s attention. It is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

unclear whether all of the information sought by plaintiff falls within the scope of discovery, but if

12

information is not privileged and is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, or if it is relevant to

13

the subject matter and good cause is shown, then it may be pursued through discovery. Any

14

dispute or failure to comply with discovery requests may be brought to the Court’s attention

15

through a joint letter in accordance with the Court’s Standing Orders.

16

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2