Board of Trustees of the Ken Lusby Clerks etc vs Piedmont Lumber et al

Filing 54

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria re 38 Discovery Letter Brief and 41 Discovery Letter Brief. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE KEN LUSBY
CLERKS & LUMBER HANDLERS PENSION
FUND,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 13-cv-03898-VC

vs.

(Previously Assigned to Hon. William H. Alsup;
Reassigned to Hon. Vince Chhabria on April 17,
2014)

PIEDMONT LUMBER & MILL COMPANY;
WILLIAM C. MYER, JR., an individual;
WENDY M. OLIVER, an individual; WENDY
M. OLIVER, as Trustee to the Oliver Family
Trust; and DOES 1-20,

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE APRIL 8, 2014
DISCOVERY HEARING AS MODIFIED

Defendants.

17
18

On April 8, 2014, Clarissa A. Kang and Sean T. Strauss of Trucker Huss APC, counsel for

19

Plaintiff Board of Trustees of the Ken Lusby Clerks & Lumber Handlers Pension Fund (“Plaintiff”) and

20

Cynthia J. Emry of Jackson Lewis, P.C., counsel for Defendants Piedmont Lumber & Mill Company

21

(“Piedmont”), William C. Myer, Jr. (“Myer”) and Wendy M. Oliver, as an individual and as trustee to

22

the Oliver Family Trust (“Oliver”, collectively with Piedmont and Myer, “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and

23

Defendants are collectively referred to as the “Parties”) appeared before the Honorable William H.

24

Alsup to address discovery issues set forth in Plaintiff’s Discovery Letter brief filed with the Court on

25

March 26, 2014 [Docket No. 38] and in Defendants’ response thereto filed on April 4, 2014 [Docket No.

26

41] (the “Discovery Hearing”).

27

conferred in the Court’s jury room regarding certain discovery issues addressed in Plaintiff’s Discovery

28

Letter [Docket No. 38] and Defendants’ response thereto [Docket No. 41], and made agreements as to
Case No: 13-cv-03898-VC

Prior to the Discovery Hearing, counsel for the Parties met and

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING APRIL 8, 2014
DISCOVERY HEARING

1

certain issues addressed in Plaintiff’s Discovery Letter [Docket No. 38] and Defendants’ response

2

thereto [Docket No. 41], including the time frame for discovery of information related to the Lakeport

3

properties (2465 S. Main Street, Lakeport; 2345 S. Main Street, Lakeport), which were at issue in

4

Plaintiff’s discovery requests referenced in its Discovery Letter [Docket No. 38]. This Order involves

5

the remaining issues resolved by the Court, as set forth in the transcript from the Discovery Hearing,

6

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

7
8
9

This Court, [having heard the Parties’ positions at the Discovery Hearing and] good cause having
been found, HEREBY ORDERS as follows:
1.

Defendants shall produce documents responsive to the discovery requests at issue in the

10

Plaintiff’s Discovery Letter [Docket No. 38] related to the Pittsburg, Walnut Creek and Oakland

11

properties going back to January 1, 2010.

12

2.

CHECK ONE:

13

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE:

14

XX

The Court overrules Defendants’ objections to the production of tax returns. Defendants

15

William Myer, Jr. and Wendy Oliver shall produce their tax returns in response to Nos. 18-22 of the

16

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents referenced in Plaintiff’s Discovery Letter [Docket

17

No. 38].

18

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED LANGUAGE:

19

____

The Court overrules Defendants' objections to the production of tax returns in response

20

to Requests Nos. 18-22 of the Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, as set forth in

21

Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Discovery Letter [Docket No. 41]. Defendants William Myer, Jr. and

22

Wendy Oliver shall produce their tax returns to the extent responsive to Request Nos. 18-22 of the

23

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents referenced in Plaintiff’s Discovery Letter [Docket

24

No. 38] going back to January 1, 2010 for the Pittsburg, Walnut Creek and Oakland properties.

25

3.

For every single entity that is investigated and regarding which documents are produced,

26

if Plaintiff loses on that entity or that alleged business, Plaintiff shall bear the costs relating to

27

Defendants’ efforts to locate and produce documents related to any such entity or alleged business,

28

including reasonable attorney’s fees and clerical costs.
Case No: 13-cv-03898-VC

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING APRIL 8, 2014
DISCOVERY HEARING

1

4.

If Plaintiff requests documents responsive to the discovery requests at issue in Plaintiff’s

2

Discovery Letter [Docket No. 38], that pre-date January 1, 2010, be produced by Defendants, Plaintiff

3

shall bear the costs associated with such a production, including Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees

4

and clerical costs.

5

5.

To the extent that Defendants request attorney’s fees relating to any aspect of this Order,

6

Defendants must move the Court, such request must be reasonable, and any award is within the Court’s

7

discretion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

15

RT

ER

H

16

ince C
J u d ge V

17

R NIA

14

hhabr ia

FO

Dated: April 29, 2014

DERED
SO OR
IT IS
DIFIED
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AS MO

LI

12
13

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

requests referenced in its Discovery Letter [Docket No. 38].

RT
U
O

11

for relevant discovery related to the Lakeport properties, which were at issue in the Plaintiff’s discovery

A

10

The Court’s Order does not modify the Parties’ prior agreement related to the time frame

S

9

6.

UNIT
ED

8

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No: 13-cv-03898-VC

3

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING APRIL 8, 2014
DISCOVERY HEARING