Sepehry-Fard v. GreenPoint Mortgage Fundiing, Inc., et al

Filing 75

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 54 Motion for Discovery; denying 55 Motion to Produce; denying 73 Motion to Compel (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2014)

1

*E-Filed: January 6, 2014*

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

8

United States District Court

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,
Plaintiff,

12
v.
13
14

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
INC., ET AL.,

15

No. C13-04535-EJD (HRL)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY AND RELATED
DISCOVERY REQUESTS

Defendants.
____________________________________/

[Re: Docket Nos. 54, 55, 56, 73]
16
Plaintiff Fareed Sepehry-Fard sues defendants for quiet title. Defendants have filed motions
17
to dismiss, which will be heard by the presiding judge on April 4, 2014. Plaintiff has filed various
18
ex parte motions, including motions to compel, to disqualify counsel, and to disqualify the presiding
19
judge. Plaintiff now moves for expedited discovery (Dkt. 54), including requests for production
20
(Dkt. 55), requests for admission (Dkt. 56), and interrogatories (Amended discovery requests, Dkt.
21
58). Defendants oppose the motion for expedited discovery and related discovery requests (Dkts.
22
61, 63). The presiding judge referred these matters to the undersigned (Dkt. 57). Plaintiff recently
23
filed an additional motion to compel (Dkt. 73) in which he renews his previous discovery requests.
24
The parties have not yet held a Rule 26(f) conference. As discussed below, Plaintiff’s motions are
25
denied.
26
A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as
27
required by Rule 26(f), unless authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by stipulation, or
28
by court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally use a “good

1

cause” standard to determine whether to permit such discovery. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung

2

Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11–CV–01846 LHK, 2011 WL 1938154, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2011);

3

Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron America, Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). “Good cause

4

may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of

5

justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.

6

Plaintiff argues that expedited discovery is necessary because Bank of America (of which

7

defendant ReconTrust is a wholly-owned subsidiary) has threatened foreclosure, Plaintiff plans to

8

seek a preliminary injunction imposing a constructive trust on the assets and certain allegedly

9

fraudulent revenues of the defendants, and defendants are likely to destroy evidence. Defendants

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

assert that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause as no notice of default or trustee’s sale has

11

been recorded on the property, there is no indication that evidence will be destroyed absent

12

expedited discovery, and in any event the requested discovery is overbroad and irrelevant.

13

Moreover, they allege that allowing expedited discovery would prejudice them because it would

14

result in heightened litigation costs. While defendants’ bare assertions of heightened litigation costs

15

do not sufficiently demonstrate prejudice, neither has the plaintiff met his burden of demonstrating a

16

need for expedited discovery. Plaintiff has provided no credible basis for believing that defendants

17

will destroy evidence or that the requested discovery would support a preliminary injunction for

18

relief as extreme as a constructive trust on all the assets of the defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

19

motion for expedited discovery and related discovery requests are denied, and discovery shall not

20

commence until the parties’ hold their Rule 26(f) conference. Thereafter, in the event discovery

21

disputes arise, the parties shall comply with the undersigned’s Standing Order re: Civil Discovery

22

Disputes.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2014
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

2

1

C13-04535 Notice will be electronically mailed to:

2

Andrew Alexander Wood

3

Helen Dan-Hwei Hsueh

4

Philip Alan McLeod

5

C13-04535 Notice will be mailed to:

6

Fareed Sepehry-Fard
12309 Saratoga Creek Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070

7
8

[e-mail], [e-mail]
[e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

3