Appleby et al v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC et al
Filing
21
ORDER FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 8/7/14. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
8
12
13
14
ROBERT APPLEBY, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
15
16
17
18
No. C 14-2318 RS
ORDER FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY
AND FURTHER SUBMISSIONS
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY
LLC. et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
19
20
In connection with the pending motion to compel arbitration, plaintiff Robert Appleby has
21
declared that he does not recall ever seeing the 2009 and 2012 “Financial Advisor/Investment
22
Representative Retention Agreements.” He has not, however, provided any direct and clear
23
statement regarding his understanding as to whether the signatures on those documents are his or
24
not. While the opposition brief implies it is possible Appleby never executed those documents—
25
presumably meaning either that the signatures are forgeries or that they are copies of his genuine
26
signature fraudulently affixed to these documents by photocopying or some other process—his
27
declaration falls short of providing sufficient facts to support such an inference.
28
1
Failure of memory, standing alone, does not call into question whether these documents
2
represent agreements into which Appleby knowingly entered in 2009 and 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel
3
asserted at the hearing, however, that Appleby may be able to offer additional testimony that would
4
be relevant to determining whether he in fact executed these documents.
5
Accordingly, defendants may take the deposition of Appleby for a period not to exceed two
6
hours, and limited to the topic of the circumstances surrounding the formation and execution of the
7
2009 and 2012 agreements. In the event there is any dispute that Appleby executed the Form U4 on
8
which defendants also rely, the deposition may also cover that topic. If plaintiffs in good faith
9
believe it necessary, they may take one deposition, two hours or less in duration, of a representative
of defendants regarding the formation of the 2009 and 2012 agreements and/or defendants’ record
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
keeping practices with respect to those documents.
12
The parties shall meet and confer to schedule the depositions at the earliest practical time.
13
Within two weeks after they are completed, plaintiffs may file any additional declaration or
14
declarations they deem appropriate addressing the issue of whether Appleby executed the 2009 and
15
2012 agreements, and whether he executed the Form U4, if that is in dispute. Within one week
16
thereafter, defendants may file a response to the further declaration(s). The matter will then be re-
17
submitted for decision.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated: August 7, 2014
RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?