Pouliot et al v. Weiss et al

Filing 4

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 10/30/06. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2006)

Download PDF
Pouliot et al v. Weiss et al Doc. 4 Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NOT FOR CITATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION GEORGETTE POULIOT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. C06-06319 JW ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO TAKE EXPEDITED DISCOVERY *E-filed 10/30/06* United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 URSULA WEISS, et al., Defendants. / On the same day they filed their "Verified Shareholder Derivative Complaint," plaintiffs filed what they styled an "Ex parte Motion for Leave to Take Expedited Discovery." The discovery sought consists of certain financial and accounting books and records of Applied Specialties of California, Inc., a California corporation. Plaintiffs claims to be the majority shareholders of that corporation. Defendant Ursula Weiss is alleged to be the corporate president and a minority shareholder. Plaintiffs allege they have been trying for months to get access to corporate information that they are entitled to by right, and that they need in conjunction with a contemplated sale of the corporation to a third party. Weiss, who apparently opposes the third party sale (and wants to buy control of the corporation herself) has supposedly stonewalled all of plaintiffs' entreaties for the information. Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The plaintiffs may well be entitled to the discovery they seek, but they will not get it here and now. Defendants have not appeared. (Indeed, it is unknown if they have even been served with a summons and a complaint.) Worse, the plaintiffs' present motion does not seek permission to propound early discovery; rather, it presumptiously asks the court (with no notice to defendants) to issue an order requiring them to turn over the information in question. This the court will not do. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10/30/06 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California /s/ Howard R. Lloyd HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case 5:06-cv-06319-JW Document 4 Filed 10/30/2006 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WILL BE ELECTRONICALLY MAILED TO: Vernon H. Granneman vernon.granneman@pillsburylaw.com, meri@pillsburylaw.com; david.tull@pillsburylaw.com Stephen N. Hollman jls@businessandtechnologylawgroup.com Counsel are responsible for transmitting this order to co-counsel who have not signed up for e-filing. Dated: 10/30/06 United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California /s/ JMM Chambers of Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?