Morningstar et al v. Jianping et al
Filing
114
ORDER Granting 100 Motion for Expedited Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/17/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
M. AILEEN MORNINGSTAR and ALICE
SLETTEDAHL, Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant RINO INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
QIU JIANPING, et al.,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
and
)
)
RINO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
)
)
Nomianl Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
Case No. 2:13-cv-00427-JCM-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Expedited Discovery #100
17
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery (#100), filed
18
on March 11, 2013; Defendants Dejun Zou and Jianping Qiu’s Response to Motion for Expedited
19
Discovery (#110), filed on March 28, 2013; and Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for
20
Expedited Discovery (#111), filed on April 4, 2013.
21
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
22
This action was transferred from the United States District Court for the Central District of
23
California pursuant to Order (#103) entered by District Judge Pregerson on March 12, 2013. As
24
stated in Judge Pregerson’s order:
25
This case is one of four shareholder derivative suits filed on behalf of
RINO. This is the second such action filed in federal court. The
first (the “Nevada Action”) was filed in the District of Nevada on
December 20, 2010, approximately one month before this case was
initiated.
26
27
28
...
1
Defendants Zou Dejun and Qiu Jianping recently sold two California
houses to help fund the settlement of a related shareholder class
action in this court. (Declaration of Robin Winchester ¶ 36.)
Plaintiffs in this case believe that the home sales yielded an excess of
approximately $2.4 million. (Id. ¶ 37.) Plaintiffs have sought
discovery regarding these assets and intend to seek to establish a
constructive trust over the $2.4 million. (Id. ¶ 49.)
2
3
4
5
In the meantime, the Nevada Action has proceeded, and may soon
settle. The parties to the Nevada Action moved for preliminary
settlement approval in November 2012. The parties here appear to
agree that final approval of the proposed settlement in the Nevada
Action will extinguish Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.
6
7
8
The court in the Nevada Action has yet to rule on the pending motion
for preliminary approval. Even if the court does preliminarily
approve the settlement, Plaintiffs here intend to object to the
settlement in the Nevada Action at the final approval stage.
9
10
11
Order (#103).
12
Prior to the transfer of the action to this district, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
13
discovery against Defendants to identify and locate funds derived from the sale of the homes owned
14
by Defendants Zou Dejun and Qiu Jianping. See Motion for Expedited Discovery (#84).
15
Magistrate Judge Victor Kenton conducted a telephonic hearing on that motion on February 11,
16
2013. Because Defendants Zou Dejun and Qiu Jianping had not yet been served in the action, the
17
motion applied only to Defendant RINO. In granting the motion as to Defendant RINO, Magistrate
18
Judge Kenton stated as follows:
19
Rino opposes this discovery on various grounds: the asserted failure
of Plaintiffs to comply with the Local Rules of this Court concerning
motion practice; that Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for
expedited discovery; that most of the Defendants from whom
Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery have never been served and are
not under the Court’s jurisdiction; and that Defendants are
prejudiced. The Court finds no merit to the Opposition, and for the
reasons set forth, intends to order the discovery.
20
21
22
23
This case has been pending for an extended period of time.
Defendants do not dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that various motions
which they filed were voluntarily held in abeyance by them pending
the outcome of the mediation. As to demonstrating good cause, the
Court finds that the discovery sought is very limited, and is certainly
relevant to the action. Plaintiffs further argue that there is a danger of
dissipation of the remaining proceeds from the sale of the property.
Further Plaintiffs represent that the District Judge has approved a
method of service of process on Defendants Dejun and Jianping.
24
25
26
27
28
...
2
1
Plaintiffs indicate they will seek a constructive trust over any
remaining proceeds from the sale of the property.
2
While Defendants raise a third objection, that certain Defendants
have never been served, and while this is true at this time,
nevertheless Rino does not dispute Plaintiffs’ contention that the
property which was assertedly owned individually by Defendants
Dejun and Jianping was utilized to fund the class action settlement of
which those Defendants were not a part.
3
4
5
6
Finally, Rino asserts that Plaintiffs have an improper purpose in
seeking this discovery; to wit, as a means of funding attorneys’ fees.
The Court sees no need to consider such arguments, as they are
speculative, and in any event, if Plaintiffs do (as they indicate in their
moving papers) seek a constructive trust over any excess funds from
the sale of the property, appropriate arguments can be made to and
considered by the District Court at that time. The Court sees no
prejudice in approving the expedited discovery at this time, as it
would appear to be clearly relevant and meets the “good cause”
standard for expedited discovery.
7
8
9
10
11
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion
and will require Rino to respond to the Proposed Interrogatories
within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
12
13
14
Order (#95).
15
RINO served its responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories as ordered by the court.1 RINO
16
responded to most of the interrogatories by stating that it “is without knowledge or information
17
sufficient to form a belief as to the information requested in this Interrogatory beyond what is in the
18
public record.” Motion (#100), Exhibit C. RINO did state in response to Interrogatory No. 3 that
19
through its counsel, it received a wire transfer in the amount of $3,535,000 from counsel for Dejun
20
Zou, which it believed represented a portion of the proceeds from the sale of Defendants Dejun’s
21
and Jianping’s houses and which was thereafter transferred to fund the Class Action Settlement
22
Fund. Id. RINO did not provide information regarding the excess sales proceeds which is the
23
focus of the Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery requests.
24
25
Once service was effected against Defendants Dejun and Jianping, Plaintiffs filed their
instant Motion for Expedited Discovery (#100) on March 11, 2013. Defendants Dejun and
26
27
28
1
The court did not require RINO to respond to the proposed requests for production of
documents attached to Plaintiffs’ first motion for expedited discovery. The order did not discuss
the requests for production or the reasons for not requiring RINO to respond to them.
3
1
Jianping make substantially the same arguments in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited
2
discovery that Defendant RINO made in opposing the first motion for expedited discovery. See
3
Defendant RINO’s Opposition to Motion for Expedited Discovery (#85). Defendants Dejun and
4
Jianping also argue that Plaintiffs failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements of Local
5
Rules 37-1 and 37-2.4 of the Central District of California and this District’s Local Rule 26-7, both
6
of which require the party seeking discovery to meet and confer, or to attempt to meet and confer,
7
with the other party prior to filing a discovery motion. These local rules supplement the
8
requirement in Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(a)(1) that a motion to compel discovery “must include a
9
certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the party or
10
11
person failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”
Plaintiffs’ instant Motion for Expedited Discovery was filed one day before Judge
12
Pregerson ordered this case transferred to the District of Nevada. Because the case was still
13
pending in the Central District of California when the motion was filed, it was technically governed
14
by the Local Rules of the Central District of California. Plaintiffs argue that Local Rule 37-2 does
15
not apply to a motion for expedited discovery because the rule “contemplates that an action is
16
already in the discovery phase, and that particular issues regarding discovery requests and
17
responses are in dispute. See Reply (#111), pg. 8. This interpretation of the local rule is, at best,
18
dubious. Local Rule 37-1 states that “[p]rior to filing any motion relating to discovery pursuant to
19
F.R.Civ.P. 26-37, counsel for the parties shall confer in a good faith effort to eliminate the
20
necessity for hearing the motion or to eliminate as many of the disputes as possible.” Local Rule
21
37-2 governs the form by which a discovery motion is to be presented to the court if the parties are
22
unable to resolve their differences. A motion for expedited discovery falls under Rule 26(d)(1) of
23
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is therefore a “motion relating to discovery pursuant to
24
F.R.Civ.P. 26-37” within the scope of Local Rule 37-1 of the Central District of California. As a
25
matter of practicality, this Court sees no reason why a request for expedited discovery should not be
26
governed by rules that require the parties to meet and confer prior to filing discovery motions.
27
Plaintiffs’ counsel states that prior to filing the first motion for expedited discovery on
28
January 22, 2013, she provided counsel for RINO and individual Defendants Dejun and Jianping
4
1
with copies of the proposed discovery requests and notified them of her intention to file the motion
2
for expedited discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that Defendants’ counsel notify her regarding
3
whether they would consent to the motion. Defendants Dejun and Jianping advised Plaintiffs’
4
counsel by letter on March 7, 2013 that they preferred to wait for a ruling on Defendant RINO’s
5
motion to stay proceedings before engaging in a meet and confer conference regarding Plaintiffs’
6
request for expedited discovery. Arguably, Plaintiffs’ counsel should have informed Defendants’
7
counsel of her desire to meet and confer without waiting for a decision on the motion to stay. The
8
Court concludes, however, that further efforts to meet and confer would not have resolved the
9
dispute. As set forth above, Defendants Dejun and Jianping have made the same arguments in
10
opposition to the motion for expedited discovery that Defendant RINO unsuccessfully made to
11
Magistrate Judge Kenton.
12
This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Kenton that the limited discovery sought by
13
Plaintiffs is relevant and that good cause exists to grant expedited discovery as it relates to
14
Plaintiffs’ stated intention to seek a constructive trust over the excess funds. Defendants are, of
15
course, free to oppose the imposition of a constructive trust. Defendants will not be unduly
16
burdened, however, by being required to respond to this limited discovery. Nor will they be
17
otherwise prejudiced thereby. Accordingly,
18
19
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Discovery (#100) as to
Defendants Dejun Zou and Jianping Qiu is granted.
20
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Dejun Zou and Jianping Qiu shall serve
21
their responses to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and Requests for Production Documents (Exhibits D
22
and E to Plaintiffs’ Motion) within fourteen days of the date of this order.
23
DATED this 17th day of April, 2013.
24
25
26
______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
27
28
5
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?