Trickel et al v. Discount Gold Brokers, Inc. et al

Filing 206

MEMORANDUM ORDER re: 196 MOTION to Compel Discovery - IT IS ORDERED that this motion is GRANTED in part as follows: 1. Hecht shall produce any remaining discovery alluded to during his recent deposition or provide a detailed sworn declaratio n relating to this requested discovery, attesting to the search undertaken to locate these items and the result of that search, on or before November 6, 2017. 2. The plaintiffs shall then respond to the defendants summary judgment motion on or before November 20, 2017. 3. Hechts reply brief, if any, will be due on or before December 4, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on October 23, 2017. (kjn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANCIS TRICKEL and
MARY TRICKEL,
Plaintiffs
v.
DISCOUNT GOLD
BROKERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 3:14-cv-1916
(Judge Mariani)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
This is an action brought by Francis and Mary Trickel, an elderly couple
who allege that they “were bilked by the defendants out of more than a quarter
million dollars of their hard earned retirement savings.” (Doc. 1, ¶1.) According to
the Trickels, the defendants “participated and/or conspired with, or aided and
abetted, . . . in a Ponzi and money laundering scheme that targeted and ripped-off
hundreds of individuals across the United States of America, many of whom are
senior citizens.” (Id., ¶2.) As part of this scheme, the plaintiffs allege that
beginning in: “at least February 2012 through about March 2014, the Defendants
engaged in a criminal Ponzi scheme to solicit and defraud unwitting investors in

the purchase of precious metals intending to obtain huge sums of money, deliver
only part of the order, claim they were unable to fulfill the remainder of the order,
and then keep the remainder of the purchase price for themselves. Even to the
extent partial deliveries were made, often by the time of the delivery the value of
the coins was significantly less than bargained for by the investors. Shipments
were delayed to take advantage of fluctuations in market prices, in particular
declines in market prices, when the product cost the Defendants less and was
significantly devalued. Defendants’ profited from this scheme to the detriment of
the investors.” (Id., ¶3.)
Default judgments have been entered against all of the defendants, with the
exception of Gregory Hecht, who continues to litigate this case. Litigation between
the plaintiffs and Hecht has been marked by discovery disputes. We are now
considering the latest of these discovery disputes. Hecht has moved for summary
judgment in this case, alleging that the undisputed evidence shows that he had no
culpable role in this activity. (Doc. 191.) The plaintiffs, in turn, have moved to
compel discovery of documents which they say Hecht alluded to and promised to
provide during a recent deposition but has not produced. (Doc. 196.)
Upon consideration of these competing motions IT IS ORDERED that this
motion to compel is GRANTED in part as follows:
2

1.

Hecht shall produce any remaining discovery alluded to during his

recent deposition or provide a detailed sworn declaration relating to this requested
discovery, attesting to the search undertaken to locate these items and the result of
that search, on or before November 6, 2017.
2.

The plaintiffs shall then respond to the defendant’s summary

judgment motion on or before November 20, 2017. If the plaintiffs believe that
they have still been denied discovery of extant materials which are relevant and
necessary to address the summary judgment motion they may, as part of this
response, seek relief by complying with the provisions of Rule 56(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3.

Hecht’s reply brief, if any, will be due on or before December 4,

2017.
So ordered this 23d day of October, 2017.

/s/ Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge

3