Securities and Exchange Commission v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC et al
ORDER granting 65 Motion to Compel; granting 70 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 5/6/13. Responses to requests for admissions due 5/20/13. Rule 30(b)(6) testimony due 6/5/13. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 5/6/13. (Nichols, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
SOUTHRIDGE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
LLC et al.,
CASE NO. 3:10CV1685(RNC)
RULING ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") brings
this case against two hedge fund advisers, defendants Southridge
Capital Management LLC and Southridge Advisors LLC, and their
principal, defendant Stephen M. Hicks.
Pending before the court
are plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to its First Set of
Requests for Admissions (doc. #65) and Motion to Compel Rule
30(b)(6) testimony (doc. #70).1
A motion to compel is entrusted
to the sound discretion of the district court.
Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2003).
In re Fitch,
After hearing oral
argument on May 2, 2013, the court orders as follows.
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to its First Set
of Requests for Admissions (doc. #65) is GRANTED.
Rule 36 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "was designed to reduce
District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the motions to
the undersigned. (Docs. #68, #71.)
trial time . . . [by] facilitat[ing] proof with respect to
issues that cannot be eliminated from the case, and . . .
narrow[ing] the issues by eliminating those that can be."
R. Civ. P. 36 advisory committee's note; see also Donovan v.
Carls Drug Co., 703 F.2d 650, 652 (2d Cir. 1983) (overruled on
other grounds) (observing that Rule 36 is intended to "narrow
issues and speed the resolution of claims").
This design is in
keeping with the primary intent of the Rules, which is "to
secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
Under the present circumstances,
permitting defendants to evade plaintiff's requests on the basis
of a procedural technicality would serve no legitimate purpose
and would frustrate the intent of the rules.
Kershner v. Beloit Corp., 106 F.R.D. 498, 499-500 (D. Me. 1985)
("There is no reason, other than a motivation to rigidly enforce
the technical requirements of the procedural rules, not to
require the [non-moving party] to respond to these requests [for
Here that motivation would produce only a result
counterproductive to the interests of the parties and the
interests of judicial economy.")
In accordance with D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 37(d), defendants
shall serve responses to plaintiff's December 2012 requests for
admissions on or before May 20, 2013.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Rule 30(b)(6) testimony
(doc. #70) is GRANTED.
Defendants' designated deponent did not
satisfy his "affirmative obligation to educate himself" as to
noticed Topic #4.
Concerned Citizens of Belle Haven v. Belle
Haven Club, 223 F.R.D. 39, 43 (D. Conn. 2004) (quoting
Calzaturficio S.C.A.R.P.A. v. Fabiano Shoe Company, Inc., 201
F.R.D. 33, 36-37 (D. Mass. 2001)).
The fact that his testimony
might be duplicative of information already in plaintiff's
possession does not relieve him of his Rule 30(b)(6)
Dongguk University v. Yale University, 270 F.R.D.
70, 74 (D. Conn. 2010) (one proper use of Rule 30(b)(6) is to
elicit organization's binding interpretation of documents it
Defendants shall satisfy their obligations under Rule
30(b)(6) with respect to Topic #4 by June 5, 2013.
are encouraged to reach an agreement regarding the form of that
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 6th day of May,
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
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?