De Fontbrune v. Wofsy et al

Filing 119

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON FURTHER DISCOVERY. Show Cause Response due by 5/26/2023. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/12/2023. (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/12/2023)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
YVES SICRE DE FONTBRUNE,

8

Case No. 5:13-cv-05957-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON
FURTHER DISCOVERY

v.
10
ALAN WOFSY, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 118

Defendants.
12
Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

On May 21, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment on eight different defenses.

13
14

ECF No. 61. On September 12, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary

15

Judgment based on one of these defenses. ECF Nos. 84. In doing so, the Court also made several

16

findings as to Defendants’ other defenses, including the notice, fraud, and due process defenses.

17

Id. at 16–19, 28. Specifically, the Court found that there existed genuine disputes of material fact

18

and, therefore, Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on those defenses. Id.
The Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s grant of summary judgment on Defendants’ one

19
20

prevailing defense. De Fontbrune v. Wofsy, 39 F.4th 1214, 1227 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub

21

nom. Wofsy v. Sicre de Fontbrune, 143 S. Ct. 1084 (2023). However, the Ninth Circuit also

22

affirmed this Court’s determinations with respect to Defendants’ notice and fraud defenses.1 Id. at

23

1234 (“The district court appropriately left to the finder of fact to determine whether Wofsy

24

‘receive[d] notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable [him] to defend.’”); 1236 (“The

25

district court did not err by denying Wofsy summary judgment on the fraud defense.”).

26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit had no occasion to opine on the Court’s denial of summary judgment on
Defendants’ due process defense because that issue was not appealed. ECF No. 116 n.2.
Case No.: 5:13-cv-05957-EJD
1

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON FURTHER DISCOVERY

1

After the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to this Court, Defendants requested additional

2

discovery on their remaining notice, fraud, and due process defenses. See Joint Status Report, at

3

4, ECF No. 116. On the Court’s invitation, Defendants submitted a list of proposed discovery

4

requests, consisting of ten requests for production, four interrogatories, and at least one deposition.

5

ECF No. 118.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

In light of the Court’s prior findings as to Defendants’ notice, fraud, and due process

7

defenses, as well as the Ninth Circuit’s corresponding holdings, the parties are ORDERED TO

8

SHOW CAUSE why the Court should or should not permit further discovery and dispositive

9

motions in this case. Both parties shall submit written responses not to exceed 8 pages by May 26,

10

2023, at which point the Court will take Defendants’ request for further discovery under

11

submission.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2023
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2